Bitcoin Forum

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/is-growth-over/

This piece of garbage lists three revolutions:

#1 steam, railroads: from 1750 to 1830;
#2 electricity, internal combustion engine, running water, indoor toilets, communications, entertainment, chemicals, petroleum: from 1870 to 1900; and
#3 computers, the web, mobile phones: from 1960 to present.

I feel that the next one would be:

#4 decentralized currency, end of central banking monopoly: ~2020 and onwards

Oh I so hope so, especially if it makes people like him rage.

More broadly I would say the p2p revolution began back in ~2000.  p2p currency is just one variant of that theme.  p2p is replacing lots of traditional server client type of systems.

Just my opinion but I feel that control over the money supply is so powerful and central to influencing our day to day lives (in fact, even determining whether or not people will continue to live, or even be born) that its importance and significance eclipses everything else.

Just look at how a relatively small handful of individuals (bankers and the politically connected) looted (and have looted) practically the entire civilized world through inflating an artificial bubble and it seems apparent that regardless of what other parlor tricks can be accomplished with peer to peer technologies, putting control over the currency back into the hands of individuals trumps all.

I agree to that to an extent I would just point out Bitcoin builds on a large p2p movement which has been gaining steam for sometime now.  I mean forget the low level tech (like peer discovery, synchronization, etc) and just think about the human side.  p2p file sharing if nothing else gives people a frame of reference.  Can you imagine how much harder it would be to explain Bitcoin to someone if p2p filesharing, voip, etc didn't exist. 

Quite the contrary: the computer revolution is only just beginning.

Indeed.

And the concept of peer to peer extends far beyond just computer network architecture. If you look at movements like 3D printing, peer to peer renting/lending, local farming and open source software you'll see that there's a growing change away from the centralized industrial mode of production of the 1950s to something much more distributed and horizontal. That's the true revolution that information technology was meant to bring, and sooner or later it will take over more aspects of our lives than we can fathom: workplace organization, governance, scientific research, medicine and education will all see serious changes in the decades to come.

Funny reading a nobel winning economist fool themselves with an elaborate version of the luddite fallacy.

+1

The problem is that it's not a fallacy as long as overdue changes in society and education necessitated by technological progress is stifled by state bureaucracy.

By "reading" do you mean imagining? Read the article. Krugman is specifically arguing that the IT revolution is only starting.

I think we are moving out of a phase of the computer revolution but this revolution will have a long way to go.  The dot com phase is going to move in the next five years to one that is going to be sad.  If you look at companies like Google, GE and others they are working on the next "internet" and the government has one running as well.  This next phase will be more controlled so only a few will have access to it kind of like cable T.V. is designed for the masses but controlled by a few.  At this point it will be interesting to see if the general public is smart enough to support something that is more open that anyone can support or will they be lulled into paying a small fee, giving up all their data for free and use one finger for touching their screen (or I hope heads-up display) to work on the new internet.  I agree with the currency suggestion but I am not sure how that will turn out and who will lead but I hope it will be bitcoin.  I also think that the traditional government model is in trouble and is too slow to change to meet the needs of those who back it.  The general public will start to undermine the government more and more by implementing things faster and sell governing causing a control issue that will result in change.

As they say, hold on to your seat because it is going to be a bumpy ride.  Oh look here comes a cliff :).

Hate to break it to you, but this is far to specific to ever be it's own "revolution".  While decentralized currency has great potential, it isn't so drastic as to alter the entire planet's every day lives. 

I disagree. The example is that the central banking monopoly is so powerful it DOES affect the "entire planet's every day lives." It seems logical to infer that a robust alternative to this monopoly would have an equally powerful effect.

Nope. Ultimately it's still just exchanging goods/services for other goods/services. A concept that's been around since before governments or even taxes.  Now, you could argue that it's highly efficient exchanging thanks to the global and instant method thank to it being digital...but then it would just piggy back on the computer revolution.  

By your logic, giving a chicken to someone in exchange for a haircut is REVOLUTIONARY.  

Though, I can see that people who like Ron Paul might have a distorted idea of the definition of "revolution".

I have a feeling the exact opposite is happening... everything is moving to 'the cloud', traditional p2p filesharing services get shut down, people are moving from torrents to download sites or to usenet. And the list goes on...

Ya, I'm feeling forced to consider the cloud, or worse, putting trust in (and pay fees to) operators I do not know in order to use Bitcoin.  The block-chain is currently 50% of my monthly total network allowance...and I pay extra money to double it else it would be close to 100%.  Of course if I were careful I would not need to download the blockchain monthly or burn my traffic allotment supporting the network, but growth trajectory is such that the end is in sight.  For me.

A real problem with P2P is that in the case where there is an adversarial relationship between classes (which is the only case that is worth putting much thought into whether or not it has cropped up in a major way so far) people are reliant on network providers as a means of struggle.  It's a certain FAIL to rely on one's adversaries for arms.  Now, of course, alternatives like the cloud are that much worse, but anyway...

Although side-band solutions like mesh networks sound good, the technical challenges to getting them working at all, much less to the level of service we've come to enjoy from commercial carries, and much much less to actually keeping them operational in the event that they are needed, are vast.

To me, the most interesting lines of development are ones which are designed to be extremely tight and thus possible to thread their way through commercial networks unmolested.  Bitcoin is NOT on that trajectory and it really detracts from my appreciation of the future potential of the solution.  In a bad case at least...or put another way, in the case where we actually *need* the solution.

A credible threat by a population to choose an alternative to 'legal tender' is, I believe, an immensely powerful thing.  Much more relevant today than what the founders of the U.S. came up with back in the late 1700's when they were mulling over the problems of balances of power between the citizenry and the central government (that is to say the 2nd amendment which is, insofar as it is an invitation to revolt, a pretty unusual thing to have codified in the 'design documents' of a government.)

Anyhow, that is probably the biggest reason why the solution of peer-to-peer crypto-currencies has such a draw to me.  As a potentially credible 'poison pill' against centralized tyranny.  OTOH, it opens the door for more localized tyrannies....so who knows how things could turn out...

Yeah I was a bit confused when reading the comments here.  Krugman starts out the article by saying he disagrees with the viewpoint that there will be no more IRs, and proposes a robot labor force.  I have no idea what's wrong with this article - robot labor forces might even be able to generate bitcoins!

I am skeptical that Bitcoin can/will permanently change the world in this way, even if it became very popular for a while, if only because bank notes and a new fractional-reserve lending system could easily be constructed on top of Bitcoin (using BTC, instead of gold/silver, as the base asset in terms of which notes are denominated), and, if, at some point, a sufficiently powerful government lacked enough BTC to redeem its outstanding notes, it could simply "close its BTC window" (just like Nixon "closed the gold window" in the early 70s) and then we'd be right back at fiat currency again.  Then we'd be in a precarious situation again, vulnerable to the threat of inflation, just as we are today with the (formerly gold-backed) dollar.  The mere existence of a cryptocurrency like BTC doesn't preclude new fiat currencies (historically derived from it) from ultimately winning out in the marketplace for currency, any more than the existence of gold did.

What damages your thesis (or would...see below) is that there is relatively less reason for people not to hold their own BTC and thus have counter-parties, necessary for fractional reserve schemes, involved.  This contrasts with gold in that there are very compelling reason to relinquish control of the medium to a (supposedly) secure custodian.

Of course as it becomes less and less practical to hold one's own BTC, and more and more common to rely on bank-like entities due to the scaling issues popping up, this principle is muted.  A potentially saving grace is that what one actually has are private keys and certain solutions do not require complete surrender of value.  But then again most people are to lazy and/or uneducated and/or not sufficiently paranoid to prefer such solutions I'm guessing.  In any event, a bank-like entity could likely gain control of many people's secret keys by offering some 'interest'.

That guys a idiot. How can he think the computer revolution is coming to a close when technology is growing at an exponential rate?

As nice as that sounds, I want to see
#4 Decentralized living, end of government monopolies and big corporate : now and onwards

The Collapse of Moore’s Law: Physicist Says It’s Already Happening (http://techland.time.com/2012/05/01/the-collapse-of-moores-law-physicist-says-its-already-happening/)

I'm guessing that Kaku is right about milking silicon technology to the limit (and I'm not holding my breath for quantum computers to do almost anything useful in my lifetime.)

I think that one mistake people make (especially those Bitcoiners who are relying on Moore-like principles to solve all problems) is to assume that just because technology exists, it will be readily available.  If anything, what technological improvements that are in the cards will likely produce major and potentially terminal challenges to Bitcoin as it is currently implemented.  As always, just, my gut feeling.

I think its like any other frontier: most of the easier technological advances have been exploited almost to the limit. Real progress will become more and more difficult with diminishing returns per R&D dollar.

Don't expect Krugman to really grasp complex concepts as this one. Here is an accurate description cited from Erik's blog:

http://evoorhees.blogspot.com.es

you DO realize the we're reaching a limit for silicon CPU frequency, right?

Let's hope we learn to make use of graphene when silicon reaches its limits.

The geniuses who invested in BTC "stocks" and pirateat40 are certainly far wiser and greater people than Krugman.  I should just ignore him and pay attention to people I've never heard of instead.

I expect that Krugman would grasp the major concepts of Bitcoin in about 5 minutes...and likely already has.  They are vastly more simple than the complexities of Keynesian economics that he adheres to.  I think that Krugman is on a dead-end along with the current monetary system which is due for a re-set.  Further, that he is probably well aware of this.  But that would not necessarily present itself in his writing in part because it would not serve his purposes which are, at least in his opinion, in the best interests of the American public.

Photonic computing will be ready one of these decades.

So when Krugman says
what he really means is



???

Interesting, kaku is a brilliant man and I believe what he is saying. However growth never really stops. It may be the end of exponential growth of "classical computers" but their are other gateways such as quantum computing. Maybe in 20-30 years quantum computers will be made available for everyone and who knows what new advances in computing will be discovered.