|
I'm kind of wondering if there isn't some word fetishism going on here.
"Bitcoin" can be defined as the original protocol. "Bitcoin" can also be defined as the system (all the nodes and people, exchanges, users, etc.) we hope will change the world. Right now those two things so close to the same that there is often little point in distinguishing them here. However, if a hard fork happened and the Bitcoin-the-system stopped using Bitcoin-the-original-protocol, we'd need to be more careful with our words or else we'd risk getting confused.
So when you say, "I like Bitcoin," do you mean - must you mean - the original protocol, or could you mean the entire system with all wills of all the people that constitute it? I feel like I'm for the latter.
Besides, Satoshi just created Bitcoin with the original "legislated" rules, and people adopted it because they liked the rules. People didn't adopt other systems that had different rules. I don't see why there is a reason to fear new "legislation" (not legislation, since it's voluntary) but not to fear the original Satoshi legislation.
|
|
|
|
As an example of the stereotypical statist concern, what retep was worried about in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0 sounds very similar to the statist belief that without the government we'd all be exploited by monopoly robber barons. Leftists worry about centralization just as much as libertarians, but the difference is that leftists believe the solution is to have government break up the monopolies or otherwise institute regulations that prevent monopolies from forming. Libertarians do not fear such natural monopolies, because they understand how these things take care of themselves (I don't intend to make the libertarian argument here; just pointing out the apparent similarities). Is it just me or did the debate between retep and Gavin/Mike, et al. have this undercurrent running through it? In this cursory view, and I emphasize again that I am not familiar with this issue in detail, the concern about centralization sounds more like the kinds of concerns a socialist would have rather than a libertarian. A libertarian would usually argue that central planning to prevent centralization is inherently self-defeating, and that as long as we don't deliberately support a centralized institution (the state) we won't have any problems with centralization, as the profit motive is not there. The analog might be that it is inherently self-defeating to exert centralized control over the blocksize in an effort to keep a situation of centralized control from arising. |
|
|
|
|
My general impression on this issue is that it's socialists vs. libertarians, or central planners vs. people who believe in spontaneous order. Is there more to it? Because I get that familiar feeling of watching people who are generally bamboozled by the free market getting all worried about how stuff will pan out without some kind of hard control in place. This is just a cursory impression, though. Any statists or anti-statists care to comment on that angle?
This is kind of confusing, though, because I know for example hazek is probably a voluntarist, but he seems to take the opposition position from what I'd expect due to centralization concerns. Perhaps the debate is more about what really constitutes centralization, or a kind of centralization to be feared or that inhibits natural order. Generally centralization is "always bad," but we may need a clearer definition of centralization to get to the bottom of this.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know much about this issue, but it seems that any sort of fees to miners should be allowed to float on the free market. The proper amounts and conventions would sort themselves out. We're all natural order free marketeers here, right?
|
|
|
|
|
What happens to Bitcoin if there is a hard fork and half go along while the other half refuse?
|
|
|
|
|
I checked out the huge, infamous Something Awful bitcoin thread and it struck me again that the most comfortable way SA goons (as they're called) can relate to anything is by taking the piss out of it. The purpose is comic gold first, truth second. That aspect of goon culture introduces a systemic bias against anything that is too new or different.
In the thread, I noticed people making major, obvious errors about Bitcoin and other things - errors that would be corrected in almost any other forum, especially the non-Bitcoin ones - yet no one corrected them. Again their primary purpose is to take the piss, and if a caricature is more funny to talk about they'll work with the caricature. They live and breathe on comic gold. Some of them even check these forums looking for gushing statements to poke fun at. It's actually kind of a nice reality check to temper the enthusiasm that can sometimes get out of hand here.
Therefore, I think SA will only support Bitcoin when it becomes funnier to make fun of Bitcoin's detractors, rather than just its supporters. Either that or when Lowtax figures out he can make money by offering premium memberships in bitcoin. Since reddit and 4chan - the closest thing SA has to siblings - already both accept it, it may be just a matter of time.
|
|
|
|
|
The negative ones help, too, as long as they're funny. At this point all attention is good attention.
|
|
|
|
 Was playing around in MSPaint, thinking about how everything interrelates. The green arrows mean "drives." Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
The value proposition for libertarians is indeed/literally unbelievable: "So yeah, you just put in a few grand, lie low for 5-10 years, and wake up fabulously wealthy in a technologically advanced libertopia."
|
|
|
|
TA ain't bunk, but there is also the maxim: "Just because something is true doesn't means it's always useful."
Provided you believe in Bitcoin's potential, trying to trade on volatility in this market, even with the advantage TA can provide, strikes me as incredibly piggish. 1000% growth every 18 months not good enough for ya? There's such a thing as being too smart for your own good.
holy hindsight bias, batman! -facepalm- Not hindsight: note the bolded text. If you're not investing because you think you'll be able to buy a house with a single bitcoin in the future, the statement doesn't apply to you. |
|
|
|
|
TA ain't bunk, but there is also the maxim: "Just because something is true doesn't means it's always useful."
Provided you believe in Bitcoin's potential, trying to trade on volatility in this market, even with the advantage TA can provide, strikes me as incredibly piggish. 1000% growth every 18 months not good enough for ya? There's such a thing as being too smart for your own good.
|
|
|
|
|
For centuries bankers have amassed a legendary share of the world's wealth because they understood money better than the general public.
If Bitcoin is the future, those who understand it first stand ready to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
What is this, 2007? That "Money as Debt" video with its basic economic fallacies and - worse - pro-fiat solutions, killed dead a thousand times in the intervening years, is enjoying a necro-resurgence. Depressing.
|
|
|
|
|
Even the exponential growth trendline for the past 1.5 years suggests we shouldn't find support at $27 until mid-March, so a pullback to $20-$21 for the next month should not be alarming.
Alternatively, it's possible that we've entered a faster exponential growth phase and we'll thrust up toward $100 by summer. Either way, let's try to contain our surprise.
|
|
|
|
I believe there already are closed loops. Perhaps not 100% closed but almost. Many Bitcoin Internet startups have the ability to pay pretty much all of their expenses in bitcoins. Our company pays a portion of our expenses in bitcoins, and we also accept bitcoins in our online store.
I know many other companies in Finland alone that pay a significant amount of their expenses in bitcoins, and accept bitcoins for something.
SatoshiDice is, as far as I know, an example of a completely closed loop. Everything, in and out, is done with bitcoins. If there are other examples of completely closed loops, I'd like to hear about them.
Interesting. What expenses are paid in bitcoins? I'm also wondering if operating this way will enable any efficiencies that are large enough to attract attention from competitors (besides S.Dice). |
|
|
|
|
Where will we see the first closed loops in the Bitcoin economy, where businesses take payment in bitcoins and then use those same coins to pay for business expenses?
|
|
|
|
|
It's still important to note that none of these big sites accept BTC directly. It has turned out so far that payment processors like Bitpay and Coinbase are critical infrastructure to take the burden of legal risk, competency handling Bitcoin, and exchange rate volatility off the merchant's shoulders. This also suggests that there is great profit opportunity in starting competing payment processors/gateways, and we may see venture capital flowing in that direction.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
