Bitcoin Forum

Nice small scale simulation of what happens when you give trust and authority to a handful of people.
And this is nothing compared to real life institutions.

If there is one lesson to learn, it is that centralization of power and capital is the source of all evil.

Actually this is what happens in a free market where there is *no* central authority and zero consequences for ripping people off. But keep trying to justify your ideology, its cute in its own way.

[citation needed]

That's right because reality bears that out so well..... Are you seriously high?

Actually, and this is why we need a higher discussion on a more philosophical level, you are about as dead wrong as one could be. Artistic movements are by definition decentralised, and it is in our nature as humans to embrace them. Whenever some misguided attempt has been made at "centralising" art and giving it direction, it has failed miserably.

Is Bitcoin art? hmmm... In some ways, yes, I guess.

Well, you gave him the reaction he wanted. Good job, gentlemen.

Decentralized doesn't imply that there is no authority but that the authority is not left in the hands of a single, or a small group, of individuals.

You haven't really countered anything, tons of bitcoins have been stolen already, and more will be stolen. And these people have felt no consequence besides free money.

Where is this mob authority you are speaking of?

Source: these forums, every day of the week. It's like a hilarious case study in how hilariously bad laissez-faire economics can fuck lots of people over easily.

Of course, you'll completely ignore everything that happens here and mumble something about Bitcoin markets 'not being free enough' or something being the actual cause, or blaming the centralization which naturally happens.

Yes, Bitcoin ATMs and in person exchanging with cash is needed, if we truly want a decentralized currency. So why is everyone using these large exchanges and online wallets? I believe people will eventually learn not to. Time will tell, and I am eager to see what will be available by the end of this year.

Clearly, this is all the work of the Illuminati.

myBitcoin¹
btcex²
bitcoin mining accelerator³

I could go on, there have been enough scams and ripoffs to fill an entire subforum...and not one person will pay any penalty for the $millions that have been stolen. In fact, the perpetrators of the above crimes are free to do so again and again. There is no authority, there is no justice, no way to get back what has been stolen. But of course soccer moms and grandmas are supposed to learn *nix and secure their wallets offline...because the Bitcoin client can't even reliably encrypt its single most important file. And if they instead trust an online wallet service in a free market with no oversight that rips them off, then it is their fault.

That is the reality of your decentralized free market system in action. If nothing else by the end the Bitcoin project will prove the flaws in the free market theory and why none exist in reality. The ideologues will of course blame it on anything except their failed theories.

What was centralized, though?  The only things that I can see that were put in the control of a few people were put there by the free market.  Are you arguing that somehow the free market needs to be prevented from making such bad decisions?

Ok, Im going to bite and tread you like an adult:

On justice:

So you mean that if a private legal and enforcing system the USA (or whatever) government would not have a problem with that and would try to mantain its monopolly? You really meant to say that the fact that there is no private justice is not because the government imposes a monopolly on justice?

On scams:

The BP fiasco where the company polluted the ocean and hurt the health of many many people happened under a government regulated system. The government has stopped any system of market based control and has decided to control anything related to the environment by itself with regulations. Those regulations allowed BP to avoid big compensations to the damnified and will be able to keep operating as they have been in the future. How is this justice?

On justice:

I simply mean to say that in an unregulated environment such as we have here, there is no justice available, private or otherwise. Given the nature of bitcoin, I doubt there ever can be. This does have a bit of a chilling effect on adoption by people who are risk adverse. It will ultimately be one the reasons that widespread adoption fails.

On BP:

The BP fiasco happened because many of the regulators were/are too close to the ones they are supposed to be monitoring. It came out afterward that BP filled out many of its own inspection reports, including the ones on the failed blowout preventer. The oil industry is one of the ones more rife with corruption in the world and it was that corruption along with their not following the regulations that resulted in the massive amount of damage that happened. The laws limiting the damages were put there by politicians that were paid lots of money to do so after Exxon-Valdez. It is not justice, though why you pulled that specific example out in this thread is confusing.


In a regulated environment if Dwolla, or Paypal, or another similar company shuts down, their customers have legal recourse that they can pursue in an attempt to get some or all of their money back. In fact any of the brokers and forex exchanges are required to have enough money on hand to cover all of their customer accounts at any time. If Tradehill, or MtG or any of the other Bitcoin exchanges/businesses shut down, their customers have *no* way to attempt to get anything back, as the users of Mybitcoin are painfully finding out. That is one of the differences between having a regulated and unregulated market.

There is with cash, and it's more anonymous than Bitcoin.

I think it's probably wise to expect this kind of thing from the system we have.  It's just the nature of the incentives, and you can see it play out this way in all different industries - the financial industry being the most glaring.

But what you are saying is not true. Even if you operate in bitcoins you are protected by the legal system of the country you live on. With the MyBitcoin fiasco someone in the forum has explained that he reported to the FBI, but nothing has happened. Well, thats the kind of protection you get from the government monopoly. I dont understand how you can defend that system.

I believe that under a competitive justice system you would get much better service, but as anything in social science there is uncertainty about it. But what we can be sure is that the system you defend is not working.


Yes, but this is exactly how regulations and the regulatory system works. Having regulations does not mean having some angels coming from the sky to take care of us faliable humans. It means having limited and corruptable humans with monopolly power. And the net results of regulations are always benefiting big companies and hurting the little guy, exactly like the BP case.


No. In a regulated environment the big players of the industry get to pass regulations that allow them to cheat the consumers. Thats how regulations work. The rest are just excuses.


Well, since you mention MyBitcoin, a Bitcoin bank, let me mention that we are in a depression were there has been record of bank failures under a regulated environment. According to your way of thinking it should not be happening. But its happening.

Regulations dont work how you think they work.

No you are most certainly not protected. Because bitcoins are not regulated by any governments. You get as much protection as if somebody stole your ISK, or WOW gold. Less actually, since you have no central authority to go to. If governments recognized bitcoin as being an actual currency, or as having value, things would chang. Bitcoins would also be taxed, but part of the taxing bit means you get the protection. Right now you pay no taxes, why should they expend their resources in helping you? A private justice system could not operate for free, either.


You fail to realize that it is the big companies that continually push for *less* regulation. BP, Exxon, etc are always trying to either undermine or repeal any environmental regulations possible. The sad part is that they have conned a whole subset of people into believing that less regulation is better.


You fail to realize that it is the big companies that continually push for *less* regulation. BP, Exxon, etc are always trying to either undermine or repeal any environmental regulations possible. Same with the banks and financial regulations. The sad part is that they have conned a whole subset of people into believing that less regulation is better.



In the US we have a program called the FDIC, it means the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. If a bank fails, the FDIC steps in and makes sure that all the depositors get their money bank (up to $200,000 I think)...Not 1 person who had an account under that limit lost a single penny at any bank that has failed in the US since the FDIC was formed 70 years ago. That is regulation in action.

I think that regulations work a lot better than you think, and it saddens me that you and so many others have been brainwashed by the very people you attack into believing that less regulation is better. There is such a thing as too much regulation, of course. But no regulation is not an acceptable solution.

...It's almost as if Economic situations gravitate towards centralisation since it offers easier use for everyone involved...

You are wrong.

1. Even if you pay on bitcoins you are required to pay taxes. Whether its enforceable and you do it is another issue.
2. Theft is not permited, and that its independent of on what you pay taxes.

I feel you need to try harder and talk of things you know and understand.


Again, you are wrong. Companies push for whatever they want, but usually it means MORE regulations. Thats the reason why in each of the last decades the regulations in the USA have increased.

Yes, despite of what the official propaganda says (and you obviously believe), if you check the data you will see that regulations have increased in each of the last decades in the USA. The deregulation myth is just that, a myth. Please dont believe me, just go and check the data.


Again, not true. As net result companies push for more regulations. The sad part is that they have educated a bunch of kids that grow into disfunctional adults into believing that regulations are for their protection.



Actually, the FDIC is the perfect example of how regulations work. The FDIC does not have the money to pay for the banks failures and that is why the taxpayers have had to rescue them, specially through the Fed. That you think that you are not paying for the banks failures just shows that propaganda works.


No, of course not. If there was no regulations, companies would have to compete and offer good services and good prices. Without regulations, how would the big companies abuse the costumers? We can not allow that.

Human greed and egotism destroys any ideology, all of the time.

And then people eventually get pissed off with the problems introduced by centralization and create decentralized replacements or make existing ones easier to use.  Bitcoin is a good example of this.

I'll quote myself here, since it seems relevant:

I'm no ideologue, but I imagine any sane ideology would take these obvious human characteristics into account.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10207486


http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/gadgets_and_gaming/virtual_worlds/article6937026.ece


I don't know what point you were trying to make.

Alright so we have 3 cases of actual crime fighting taking place regarding digital goods! Out of the millions of crimes everyday, totaly fluke accident figures. Most officers in the world wouldn't lift a finger to such crimes being reported.

RIAA
MPAA

I have no idea why people believe the law doesn't apply just because it's "digital". It does. There's no problem whatsoever reporting a theft of bitcoins. If the value of the object (digital as well as physical) is high enough it will be prioritized.

Of course, local laws may vary.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,442322,00.html

I'm still not sure I understand what in the bitcoin world was "centralized."  People were free to put their money in mybitcoin or not.  Same goes for mtgox.  They had no authority except over people who chose to be their customers.  How is this a "free market" versus "central authority" issue?

Your government has to recognize that what was taken has any value. Theft is indeed wrong and illegal, but they put slightly lower priority on a few digital bits vs. $500,000 in cash. See: Allinvain.

[citation needed]


Companies like BP and Exxon would love nothing more than to run in an unregulated environment. They would love to be able to drill wherever they found oil and not worry about pesky regulations. Power companies would love to be able to run their plants without worrying about emissions. Personally, I rather enjoy the regulations that require a minimal standard for my drinking water, and the air I breathe.  It costs money and takes away from corporate profits to have to deal with regulations, and most companies would prefer to have zero regulation.


What I see is that millions of people who needed their savings did not lose them, and thus helped us to avoid Great Depression 2.0. Of course to you that must seem a failure. It is precisely for reasons like this that governments should exist. Governments are not meant to turn profits, they are not corporations.


Actually in a non-regulated world, you would have entities like Standard Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_oil) running the show. In the absence of Anti-Trust regulations, monopolies will naturally occur in the market. Once that happens there really is no need to compete anymore. Actually once they get to certain size, they can simply undercut all of their competitors out of the market, resulting accelerating their predominance. It is a natural tendency of the market to gravitate in that direction. Regulations keep that from happening in the real world.

I am curious from your earlier post, you mentioned private justice. How would such a system be implemented for Bitcoin? I cannot see how any effective private justice system could work, given the nature of the Bitcoin network.


@defxor:
Most law enforcement has to recognize that what you lost actually had value. Simply because you tell them you had $500k worth of digital goods stolen does not mean that it really is worth that. Now tell them $500k in cash or gold or something else tangible and they put a bit more of a priority on it. MPAA and RIAA have a lot of lawyers that they use to pressure law enforcement agencies with. A civilian has slightly less leverage. Also most agencies are not equipped with proper tools to do an investigation, and simply file your report away in unsolved crimes. The point is that one of the costs of not having any oversight or regulation is that it is useless to go to the police when something bad happens. It is kind of like trying to report a theft of illicit drugs, only without the risk of being arrested ;)

Centralization can be the result of imposition or free choice.  In any case, it brings with it a loss of resiliency in the event of failure.

I'm quite sure the links I gave showed conclusively that it's enough to state the worth of your Habbo hotel furniture and Runescape characters for law enforcement to take seriously. That's no different from reporting a theft of an heirloom or antique furniture where you won't have a store receipt readily available to point to.

Bitcoins would, in that regard, be much much simpler to value. There's no "government recognized" part involved in this at all.

Ok, let's accept that, by your definition, if a whole bunch of people choose to put their money in mtgox or mybitcoin of their own free choice, that's a type of "centralization."  (edit: I should add that I don't agree with this definition; I'm just accepting it so we don't get distracted by semantics).  Are you suggesting that this type of centralization is bad and should be prevented somehow?  This seems like an obvious potential consequence of a free market to me.

I'm suggesting exactly what I said: "it brings with it a loss of resiliency in the event of failure".

I've posted technical solutions here if you're interested: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33892.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33892.0).

It is.  Am I supposed to be offended?

No, not at all.  Your link clears a lot up, thanks.

Im glad that you admit in your way that what you said was basically wrong.

Btw, Allinvain case is not a confirmed theft. He came here, said he was robbed but there is no confirmation.



Its quite amazing that you go around saying things like deregulation! deregulation! without even looking at the data and what has really happened. You are proof that propaganda works. Here you have a nice graph:

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1443/tumblrl380skhaal1qap3vj.jpg

Im guessing that even after seeing the data proving that the people claiming deregulation were lying to you you are going to continue believing them (propaganda works).


In a free market, they would not be allowed to do those things and the quality of the water and the air would be much better. Its only because the government has taken over the management of the environment that they get away with it.

Btw, you are resorting to not answering arguments and just launching stupid accusations.


Right, because the taxpayer money the banks got was not taken away from people right? Also, the FDIC causes lots of other problems. In fact without the FDIC this crisis would not have been so big.

But the gem is this: "avoiding Great Depression 2.0"? We are in the Great Depression 2.0. This is again another proof that propaganda works.




Ah, the myth of Standard Oil again. Honestly, you are going through all the points of the basic indoctrination for government regulations. If you really want to debate Standard Oil, lets go at it, but I feel you dont know much about it and will change subject like you have been doing for all the "debate".

You are the cause that BP got to pollute the golf and that corporations get to fuck over us. You should try to be less selfish and study a bit more reality for your fellow man. If you support regulations you are a corporatist.


There is lots of literature about it. I can point you some if you are interested.

Nobody's against regulation, per se, not even libertarians.  Any system of enforcement of a particular system of private property rights is a form of compulsory market regulation, for example.

But it's absolutely justifiable to criticise the job governments do of regulating markets, and to propose alternative mechanisms.

You are playing with semantics. Laws against theft and murder are not consider regulations. Nobody considers that the USA constitution is a set of regulations. Everybody understand by "regulations" the set of ever changing rules the governments use to manage the economy.

And btw, there are lots of libertarians that are against regulations and believe that the law should be an emergent system from the tradition of society. See, I played again with the semantics of regulations, lets not do that.

From dictionary.com

reg·u·late   [reg-yuh-leyt]  Show IPA
verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3.
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4.
to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

No mention of governments here.

You say that they "would not be allowed to do those things". Who would forbid them from doing so and how? In particular, if you think that the market would stop them, can you point to the process by which it would do so and justify why all the people involved in the market would act in that way?

I said there is no point in discussing semantics. Everybody understand the context.

The point is that contrary to what Lupus was saying the number of regulations in the USA have increased, not decreased.

And I disagreed.

It's just not clear to me why some rules the government enforces should get the special privilege of avoiding being called regulations, and others don't.  How do you make this distinction?  And how is it not arbitrary?

So to avoid this problem, I think libertarians should simply use the word in the more general sense.  Plus it'll help with your PR effort, since most people support and understand the need for market regulation.

Which is the one I used.

The point being is that he was incorrect in his believe that there has been deregulation in the USA.

The free market, and by magic

No, not the general sense I'm referring to.

Illustrative examples:

• the heart regulates blood flow
• the Bitcoin network is self-regulating
• the cognitive radio regulates its own transmission frequency and intensity
• the polycentric legal order regulates social interactions

See, the non-government notion of "regulation" is useful for libertarians.