Bitcoin Forum

What would you say to the following list and descriptions of the principles Bitcoin is built upon:

• finiteness - unlike the infinite supply of fiat currencies the total supply of bitcoins to ever exist is forever arbitrarily limited and fixed
• tangibility - issuing new bitcoins requires labor in the form of finding a specific number by solving a cryptographic math problem
• transparency - all Bitcoin transactions are public and forever stored in the blockchain for anyone to see
• anonymity - all Bitcoin transaction are only between cryptographical pseudonyms without the need to have their true identity revealed
• security - all confirmed Bitcoin transactions are with mathematical certainty irreversible, all bitcoins are with mathematical certainty non-counterfeitable
• decentralization - Bitcoin has no central authority and is voluntarily run by consenting autonomous peers in a peer to peer network
• self-ownership - only the owner of a pseudonym gets the password to spend his bitcoins in effect making them his property unless he chooses otherwise
• integrity - all bitcoins are counted equally(are fungible), virtually can’t be frozen or blocked from being spent
• practicality - Bitcoin works anywhere, for anyone, non-stop, and the protocol allows for many practical layers on top, just like email, http..
• rationalism - the Bitcoin software is written under the MIT open source license and is not a logically inconsistent intellectual property of anyone but merely organized information everyone can use as they wish

Did I miss/too loosely describe anything?

You forgot.. it will make you rich someday..  ;)

I wouldn't necessarily call the first principle scarcity since they aren't exactly rare. I would find another term to describe the set amount.

Anarchy probably isn't a good term for promoting BitCoin to the common consumer. We want it to gain credibility, not infamy ;)

Got a better word to describe the same principle?

You could have decentralised.

I'm looking for principles not engineering methods.

EDIT: on second thought, you just gave me a brilliant idea! I looked at http://thesaurus.com/browse/anarchy and to my dismay this word's meaning is generally used completely differently than how I use it. I 100% realize the meaning of words is just a commonly shared subjective preference and therefor it's a very good idea to use the most commonly shared preference if one's goal is to best communicate one's ideas.

So I replaced anarchy with decentralization and the idea you gave is to start calling anarcho capitalism decentralized capitalism! :D

i don't think the word has to end in a -y to be a principle.

1.  scarcity:  i've never liked this word either.  gold isn't scarce; yet its more valuable than fiat b/c its supply is fixed.  how about "determinate" as in fixed?

2.  anarchy:  i don't like this principle either.  what's wrong with "decentralized"?  is that not a principle?

2.  security - all confirmed Bitcoin transactions are with virtual mathematical certainty irreversible, all bitcoins are with virtual mathematical certainty non-double spendable

Don't like that.


Yup. Changed it already.


I don't think that's accurate.

Hmm. I would disagree on that one. There is a central authority right now (or they claim to be), the Bitcoin foundation. I remember you were quiet pissed about that, but the fact is still that lead developers are the authority at the moment.

And you may have talked about  the network infrastructure, but since you include the word "authority", it somewhat applies anyone who has control over the project.

ah, you're right.  i took your meaning of "virtual" the wrong way.  how about this?:  

3.  security - all confirmed Bitcoin transactions are with virtual mathematical probability irreversible, all bitcoins are with virtual mathematical probability non-double spendable

You are mistaken. They are but a voice, just like everyone else.

Vampire,

while the foundation was formed to pay the dev's and take a lead in the further development of the bitcoin protocol, the foundation itself could disappear tomorrow and bitcoin would continue to exist.

Resolute maybe? It would describe the set amount and the attitude of the BitCoin community all in one.

Well companies don't stay forever, the products do. I refreshed my memory and bitcoin foundation does imply itself as a central "authority":



I do remember this BIP 16 war about a year ago.

From the linux foundation's website:

"Since its inception in 1991, Linux has grown to become a force in computing, powering everything from the New York Stock Exchange to mobile phones to supercomputers to consumer devices. The Linux Foundation is the nonprofit consortium dedicated to fostering the growth of Linux. Founded in 2000, the Linux Foundation sponsors the work of Linux creator Linus Torvalds and is supported by leading technology companies and developers from around the world.

The Linux Foundation promotes, protects and advances Linux by marshaling the resources of its members and the open source development community to ensure Linux remains free and technically advanced."

The only difference from bitcoin foundation is the call to standardize the protocol. 

Are you saying the Linux foundation is the "central authority" of the Linux platform?

The word "anarchy" would not fit indeed since it would conflict with the very existence of these rules/principles   ;D

Yes? Well at least the kernel. It was actually my point. Linus does decide the direction of Linux.

http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel

i think you need to add a #10, and i know you're gonna love this one.  we've disagreed about it before but i still think Bitcoin is:

10.  democratic-as in fair to all who care to participate on an individual basis.  even if you disagree with the term, there is nothing in the other 9 principles that indicate fairness, which i think is a fundamental reason why ppl are willing to participate.

Ugh.  Linus is benevolent dictator for life of the project that bears his name.  However, if anyone doesn't like his decisions, they can fork.

In bitcoin, the situation is totally opposite.  If anyone wanted to make a big change, they would be the fork, and they'd have to convince all of us to switch.  Bitcoin is decentralized in the sense that no one has the capacity to make big decisions for the network.

Funnily enough I was putting something together today and wondering about the word 'scarcity' in relation to Bitcoin.  I went with it in the end I think because scarcity is relative.  Thinking in terms of the number of Satoshis scarcity may be among the last word to come to mind yet fewer than 21 million maximum globally helps me feel it is justified.  Also, if you think most people reading such a list would be thinking in terms of comparing with other currencies scarcity works because there's no other currency people are prepared so pay so much (of any other currency) for for a single unit.

But nobody is obliged to follow any new standards.  Its heritage and the respect the devs have earned means it's not to most outrageous when they change something the new standard is largely followed.  Which also means it's not unreasonable for BF (officially not 'the' BF) to consider and talk of themselves accordingly.  However I agree with hazek when he says 'They are but a voice, just like everyone else.'  It is fact that they have zero power over the future of Bitcoin and in my book that means no authority too in terms of 'benevolent dictatorship'; they only have earned authority that remains as long as the vast majority of us continue to consent to it.

Also, I think 'no central authority' is very fair if we think of the power BF has over Bitcoin and its users compared with the issuing banks of entity-controlled currencies, whether fiat or private.  The fact of Bitcoin's rules being built into every client dictating how Bitcoins behave requiring the vast majority of its users to agree to any changes leads me to the conclusion that ' no central authority' is in no way an exaggeration.

The only one I'm slightly uncomfortable with is the 'anonymity' line.  I tend to prefer to say Bitcoin can be used anonymously (although I acknowledge this is not the format of the OP) - and to add a caveat it's a topic that needs to be studied for those for whom this matters.  I fear many more Bitcoin users than realise are leaving themselves exposed from having read about the anonymity in the headlines and jumped in without having done their homework first.

But nice list hazek, thanks

An excellent point. I see a lot of sites advertise BitCoin as "anonymous" either without notation or with notation that doesn't do justice to the truth. Very misleading, if you ask me. The community should make a bigger effort to clear up that misconception.

There would need to be a hell and it would need to freeze over before I'd do that. And Bitcoin is not fair. What it is however is built on integrity, which I included.

Indeed, I would remove the word "virtual", because it still true unless proven otherwise..  The word "virtual" has a meaning like "not real", "not tangible", and by me reading, seems to induce "not really" !

+1

IMO, its accurate unless prove otherwise !  I insist, in my readings, the world "virtual" include a lot of doubt, uncertanties and seems ladle !

People have trouble understanding very small probabilities. When you say "virtual" or "mathematically probable," people think about it in terms of a 1% chance, or the chance of winning the lottery. With Bitcoin, though, the chance is so small that it can be assumed to be zero. The word "certain" can apply.

Indeed, anonymity is not implied in the use of bitcoin.  Many steps, way to do are needed to ensure a real anonymous use of bitcoin.  This "very relative anonymity" is much more a case than the "very unprobable, not proven yet" reversibility or double sepnd possibility..

And yes, this is a very nice list, that should come to something very usefull and true !  :) thanks to the OP !

Yeah, I never liked the word "anarchy" which loosely means "without ruler". I much prefer the term "autarchy" which means "self rule".

For your list above I think "capitalism" works perfectly. I define "capitalism" as "the private ownership of capital" - not to be confused with "crony-capitalism" or "Fascism" which, to me, consist of the marriage between big business and government who collude to eliminate free market competition (competitors).

all this means is that we have different definitions for democracy.  if you had asked most Americans prior to 2008 what type of system we lived in, i'm confident most would've said a democracy.  since then, however, most will probably say socialism or republic.  that's b/c most Americans most likely think of democracy the way i described above.  as fair to the individual.  what we have now, not so much.

i also think Bitcoin is fair which is different from having integrity.  i know lots of ppl who have integrity but i would never do business with them b/c i think they would be unfair due to their particular outlook.

Capitalism.

I do not entirely agree on this point though I understand your description.

Capitalism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

I do not see Bitcoin as an ecnomic system. Bitcoin is more accurately, capital itself. Also when considering mining pools where many individuals cooperatively produce wealth it goes against the definition. Bitcoins could just as easily be used by a communist country that forces people to pay Bitcoin in order to stay out of jail.

You could change it to just say "property: that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner".

Bitcoin could just as easily become public property as it is private property.

Good list of key Bitcoin properties.

If you don't like 'scarcity' (which is technically true but gives the impression you'll never actually see a bitcoin) how about fixed supply.   For simplicity you can skip that it it the total amount over time that is fixed.

It is both an economics term but also is meaningful to the lay person.

Finite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite

The problem with autarchy is that is can be confused with autarky. In fact, I do not pronounce them differently. It may also be confused with autocracy.

If people use the word agora for market (αγoρά), you could perhaps invent a word for "rule of the market": agorarchy? That would then be equivalent to anarcho-capitalism.

What about:

(Trans)portability: You can easily transport it around the world without having to worry about capital controls.

This is one of the reasons I'm accumulating BTC instead of gold.

I was thinking predictability as a principle for Bitcoins fixed supply. I somewhat agree that scarcity may be a poor choice of words since Bitcoins aren't really scarce per see, especially not right now.

Covered under practicality and integrity.

Combine both terms:

Fixed supply with predictable disbursement :)

I prefer the capital to be reserved to capital goods, goods that needs more work, natural resources and other capital to be finished to consumer goods. This is different from money, which is not useful for anything except exchange.

So bitcoins are just money, not capital.

Funny you should say that.  Thats exactly what i was going to recommend since that is how i describe it to ppl: fixed supply.

But it didn't sound impressive enough so i recommended 'determinate'.

So I've amended the list and made a few other improvements. I threw out scarcity and replaced it with consistency. I was debating between consistency and predictability and in the end decided that predictable doesn't quite capture the certainty of the fixed supply, soundness is also an option that I'm still considering. I changed the description of tangibility. I followed the advice given and replaced virtually with mathematically. Decentralization I felt needed a bit clearer description so I changed it. I replaced capitalism with a lot more politically neutral and philosophically clearer self-ownership.

I also found the 10th principle to round up the number of principles:

+1

Looks pretty damn good. It could maybe be cleaned up a little bit, but the basic principles are good to go.

it is pretty good.  i still think determinate works better than consistency.  ;D

...and after all the back and forths on it I'm convinced by finite now :)

We have Genesis in book form on how Satoshi thought the coin into existence.

So we are working on the ten commandmends now?

Will he send his son one day to save world economics, as we were mislead and thrown from nerd Eden?

It's a description not a prescription, obviously.

Hm....

I don't see where anyone has mentioned it before, but I would rather see 'predictable' used here.  We know very closely how many BTC will exist at a certain point in the future.  When people make the decision to convert fiat to bitcoin, to buy or sell goods and services in bitcoin, or to convert bitcoin back to fiat, they can be assured that bitcoins won't magically disappear, or that new ones won't be created at a rate not known ahead of time.

This property of 'predictability' derives from the distributed consensus of recorded transactions (blockchain) and the periodic adjustment of mining difficulty, and stands in stark contrast to fiat money supply. 

Even physical metal-based money only loosely approximates this.

I'm actually starting to lean heavily towards finite. I don't know but both predictable and the current consistent is way too loose for just how fixed Bitcoin's supply is.. what about soundness as a principle, wouldn't that fit Bitcoin very nicely?

fiat == infinite expansion possibilities
bitcoin == the exact opposite of infinite == finite limit of 21m

My only concern with 'finite' is, that while true, it has a subtle connotation of 'fixed'.  The supply of bitcoin in circulation is only fixed after a very long time from now (but until then its growth rate is predictable :) )

Regarding 'sound', that's a conclusion based on a judgement call, not an objective fact about bitcoin (much as I agree with all the above.)

It's cool to see threads like this where folks try to wrap their minds around reified notions. Some find ontological debates tedious. With Bitcoin, I find it fascinating. Money is man's greatest god and here we are writing his ten commandments.  :D

I would like to see this broken down into sections. One describing the mechanical attributes, one describing the practical social attributes, and a third describing the potential disruptive attributes.

Hm gooood point! You convinced me and I'm going to change it.

As a mathematician, finite has no such connotation in my mind.

I had some issues with the list at first but the improved version seems really good. I will probably translate this to Finnish at some point and add to our site.

It could be a good idea to put something like this to Wikipedia as well. Not sure if it would stick but it doesn't hurt to try.

I'm building my own site, that's what this is all about. I wasn't confident in the initial list so I decided to field test it and clearly it was a good decision :)