You do not need bitcoin for it. You can do it with gold (as Switzerland will be approaching in 3 weeks). And still is not done. Lot of people prefer governments managing their lifes.

Well, my objective was not triggering a mini-debate on "the domain" (as it would take lots of threads) but questioning why it does not exist. You are working for an idea (which I agree), how do you know that you are not being a puppet when actors in the industry do not clearly raise the debate? If you are successful with your plans, but the rest of the society does not change, you will be the happy one (because you succeed)...... and the poor one in the society.

.... which means as a Keynesian, is not it?

Is there not any rational debate about the target environment to introduce in the market a rational idea? I love the proposals of cryptos but, the method how it is being put it forward, shows that it is not an actual market. Which raises me concerns about its actual purposes (=making a better society vs balancing investment portfolios with a new mysterious asset=fake).

Where is the Hayek-Keynes debate? Who is trying to analyse what kind of society will cryptos fit in? What other currencies will have the crypto to coexist? What will be the role of governments? What types of democracy and how can they fit with reality? Who does know here what praxeology is? Where is the debate of ideas? What things would we need from governments to have a crypto society? What would be their role? Who is exposing the big picture? What is the mission and vision of crypto companies (unknown)? Why are Russia and China buying gold? How does IMF SDR fit here? Nothing of that. Just empirical progress, keep going... as far as you can.... as a keynesian or as a sheep. And we will see what we find. When actors do not plan rationally to balance their risks means that it is not an actual market.

My criticism is as a libertarian Austrian advocate.

i read road to serfdom 10 years ago for the first time

yes, for keynesians, credit = growth (= debt)

the bigger the debts of the people, the more the country ... "growths"

obviously keynesianism is a scam, but nobody speaks about it, just, "we need growth" = more debt slaves

but i am not sure that cryptocurrencies can face, by themselves, a future government gold backed reserve currency.... unless some other conditions are met, e.g. gold backed cryptocurrencies, no government money, gold government money vs gold people's money+criptocurrencies....

Tomorrow I will read the papers. But, really, you do not need to understand the details of bitcoin (been following about 2 years already but not in detail) to understand how it can fit. If fact, they are a bit different areas and no one is opening the old coexisting monetary systems (and more) debate. I was expecting this from crypto providers but..... they do not seems to be interested.  

And, what happens with Russia, USA, China, EU, the gold, the oil, the gas...... matters a lot for future of cryptos. They are not standalone.

I aware of it...

Suppose now that you have governments trading with a gold backed currency. And government companies trading internationally with the same currencies. And a whole set of government patronage networks of friend companies, influences and privileged connections trading with the same gold backed currency.

And, on the other hand, you have separated individuals in the open market, trading in cryptocurrencies and bitcoin.

If you want to sell your flat, who would you sell a flat to? Which of both sub-systems has more purchasing power? Who will own the law and the resources? What would dream any guy going to university working for, the bitcoin market or the government-network?

I am not defending any specific position (despite I have one) because I miss data, we do not have enough data to forecast the future. What I state is that, this debate is unexistant. This battle of ideas was existing 60 years ago, but today, at the implementation stage, the battle of ideas is missing. Have we become dumber?

you are working in an austrian idea and thinking as keynesians. Why are not crypto companies evangelizing on this?   (because they are funded by keynesian money)

ok, now the arguments please. Other than faith.

Mine are: Asia can create a gold backed reserve currency forcing world governments to do the same, decoupling people's currencies from government's currency. Everybody will want to work for government to get paid in hard currency and cryptos will be the currency of poor people. As long as governments, gold and oil do not disappear, and you do not revolve, cryptos will be the currency of poor people.

Where are your arguments please?

I really miss critical thinking. Austrian economics, the foundation of cryptos, is based on rationalism. Are not there any Austrians involved in bitcoin? I am not skeptical, I think critically. Anything wrong with that? or is better to be a sheep?

Where is the battle of ideas in the crypto world beyond pure implementation? Why they are not showing it to you?

Hey man, is not so difficult to understand that is a sarcasm for ponzi (scheme) - economics which is what we have in the mainstream today.

yes, just registered and out of crypto world. But where else is this debate? You all take for granted that bitcoin will be the only currency and everything else will disappear.  

I did not say cryptos are bad (I advocate the idea), I said that I have many concerns about current market and current context. Anb this is why I am not yet involved.

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

I am not saying stop doing bitcoin, I am saying, eih, heads up, be careful about the world around just in case we are being puppets. Maybe at some point we should be revolting in order to have a bitcoin society. (as certain conditions are needed).

Thank you for your comments. What I wanted to state is, despite I love the idea, I am not that sure that is going to be the right context to carried it out in the medium term, and that the future of cryptos depends, no just on themselves, but ALSO on what "we will be allowed to do" or "what context we find".

I will revisit the links again with more time. And obviously I miss more debate on the context of cryptos and where they fit regarding the rest of the world.

My academics is an industrial engineer despite I worked 15 years as IT dev and arch in finance. However, I realise you do not understand the context of cryptocurrencies.

I agree that in the event of a collapse, bitcoin has a chance, no question.... supposing that the collapse does not impact on bitcoin infrastructure (internet remains up)... But, this is a different discussion, I think.

Honestly I do not expect any collapse. I think central banks have already learnt to buy assets and extend status quo for 30 years more. Japan already has been 25 years kicking the can.

Even I also doubt of direct confrontation West-East. Despite they have sanctioned each other and the like, G-20 is going to present to the world global measures in 2 weeks, about building global infrastructures (printing 45tn$ in 5 years and Asia is involved), if you have a look at main US Treasury holders, they do not even shrink but they are holding more dollars instead. I bet more for a global dictatorship or maybe 2 dictatorships with different flavour. And, for example, in the event of a collapse, if the currency gets totally debased, who is going to maintain the nukes? Obviously governments will jump into a global fascism. And this is the scenario where I see cryptos evolving to become the currency of the poor people.

I agree we have several scenarios here. I am more in the no collapse scenario. And, in this global fascism, I do not see the cryptos as hard money.

yes, BUT, next reserve currency probably will be in Asia, renmimbi, ruble or something else (e.g. IMF SDR). Asia has the oil and now, also the gold, and Asia, either Russia and/or China, would be happy to get paid in gold for their oil by backing their currencies in gold as reserve currency. This will force the rest of the world to also back their (government) currencies in gold to pay for Asian oil and resources. And this will force governments decoupling their currency from people's currencies. And people's currency will be debased over time. Who is going to be a crypto entrepreneur instead of working for government, and get paid in a hard currency, on these conditions? Do not you see the threat?

The owning of the resources, i.e. oil (we are still a oil based society), defines who has the power. (PETRO dollar)

I am an IT guy for 15 years, I can figure out what things can be done and I am aware of some of them, but I cannot figure out who will want to do them, when you can work for companies that never get bankrupted and get paid in a gold backed currency. No entrepreneur can compete with these companies, close to governments, whom own the resources, never get bankrupted and trade internationally. So you will have a society with patronage networks and cryptos will be for the excluded ones, the low level class. This is what I see.

That said, I will browse your links. Thanks for them.

Thanks for your comments. I am afraid of seeing one thing as current society evolves. I am afraid of seeing a new world reserve currency raising anytime soon, maybe backed in gold. I see governments separating people's currencies from government's currency, and cryptocurrencies being the resource of the poor people, those that did not get a chance for a government paid job. So, to properly understand where cryptoworld fits, it is required to understand where the rest is moving to.

For example, are you aware that there are political initiatives which will allow big companies no getting bankrupted anymore? This will be presented in Brisbane in 2 weeks by G-20.....Where does cryptoworld fit here?

well, maybe not everything is fake, obviously, and there are actually some genuine companies and people working on a big ideals, the free banking idea is decades old, but I am afraid, part of the market just tries to mislead and distort the original proposal.

What is going on here? Is bitcoin, and the other, about bits or is about society values?

but you should, do not you think?

http://mises.org/document/3970/Denationalisation-of-Money-The-Argument-Refined



What if the government let anyone use a currency of his or her choosing? What if the government permitted entrepreneurs to innovate in the monetary sector, such as by creating digital currencies or minting commodity money?

This is precisely what F.A. Hayek argues.

By special arrangement with the Institute for Economic Affairs, the Mises Institute is pleased to offer a new printing of F.A. Hayek's most radical case for the complete privatization of money: The Denationalisation of Money. He wrote this near the end of his career, after thinking through all the economic arguments for monetary reform and examining the political viability of various proposals. He shows the essential unviability of government money, and calls for a complete free market in the production and distribution and management of money.

This book is the very core of the Hayekian approach to monetary policy, and the book that drew the world's attention to this radical thinker following his Nobel Prize in economics. The argument is substantively similar to Mises's but rather than a gold standard, Hayek argues for completely abandoning government attempts to reform money. The result would be competitive private currencies that permits the market alone to choose the dominant currency the world over.

Hi, this is my first message in the board so greetings everybody.

Well, I have been following the cryptocoin market for a while. I have felt the temptation to get involved quite a few times since it looks the only promising initiative to allow citizens decide their own future. By the way clarify that I am a libertarian, Austrian advocate, despite I am aware of flaws in Austrian economics which makes me a bit a Popperian more that a Hayekian. As an IT contractor I have got involved in projects for Central Banks and Statistical Offices in Europe so I known a bit how the mainstream works and what they intend.

Despite I have thought getting my hands dirty on the crypto world, my (few) approaches to it has been always disappointing. I see that main cryptocoin providers has run away of proposing any ideological battle. Nobody speaks about what ethics is (against morals), what negative liberty means, why the current scientific method (as the foundation of current monetarism) is a logical mistake, what is the difference between positive and normative economics, and what I see in the bitworld is: bits, block chains, mining and hardware. Nothing else. Dissappointing.

So, which is my conclusion of this? If you realize, most of the cryptocompanies have been created out of investors, which instead are feed by Federal Reserve, by BoJ, by ECB injections and by the full mainstream economic machinery. They are no proposing anything new but looking for an alternative way to balance their investments. And this is in my opinion a thief. They have stolen the initial Shatoshi idea, they have occupied it, emptied of any content and they look for to do more of the same carry trade business.  

I have created a discussion board (http://ponzinomics.org/) which I have maintained for 3 months and this is my first attempt trying to hit the market to propose the battle of ideas. The board sits on current mainstream economics and the "current real world", trying to enroll people from all ideologies and trying to make them understand how current system works as a whole. Obviously, as an Austrian I want to convince others why Austrian ideas are better than keynesian models based on the scientific method, but I want to hear opinion of others as well. I have not found this proposal in any place on the whole web, so if you challenge the idea, I want to create a community about it and maybe "evangelize".

That said, I want to hear your opinions about why cryptoworld is not a fake since is funded by the mainstream and does not propose any new ideas just other way to do more of the same thing.