Here is the problem: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/05/mark-carney-isolation-globalisation-bank-of-england
And again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003756/Robots-steal-15m-jobs-says-bank-chief-Doom-laden-Carney-warns-middle-classes-hollowed-new-technology.html

From the DM article: "Mr Carney claimed that 'up to 15million of the current jobs in Britain' – almost half of the 31.8million workforce – could be replaced by robots over the coming years as livelihoods were 'mercilessly destroyed' by the technological revolution."

That's coming from the Governor of the Bank of England of all people. I've said this before and I will say it again: the social consequences of the coming revolution will not be solved by the blockchain or cryptography or by decentralising monetary systems. The 'smart' revolution challenges the very concept of money itself, i.e. as something that needs to be 'earned' in any conventional sense of the term. Who will pay for the millions that will be made jobless over the next couple of decades? How will they live? It is a social problem, not a technological one.

What we need is a new sociology of money. Once we accept that the 'smart' revolution is the revolution (i.e. that the jobs it eliminates will not be replaced and in fact do not need to be replaced) then we have to look for a monetary solution that is equally radical. A revolution of this magnitude requires a completely new economic paradigm. We need to abandon everything we think we know and acknowledge that existing concepts (based on economic theories that are centuries old) have zero utility in a scenario where people simply can't earn because jobs are no longer available.

We have to change the 'polarity' of money, from a negative charge to a positive charge. It is pointless to pretend that money needs to be earned through labour or that computers need to 'earn' money for us. I'm currently working on my own solution (different from the white paper I posted elsewhere on this board) but it's not based on the blockchain and I'm not prepared to make it public. What I will say is this:

1. A new currency requires an internal market to get started. M-Pesa is a success because it is built on an existing internal market (for mobile phone services) within existing internal markets (the Kenyan and Tanzanian economies). Consider loyalty cards for example, the kind operated by major supermarkets. They're basically closed-loop credit cards, and if you build up enough points then you can pay for a trolley full of goods in 'points' rather than money. They work because they have an internal market, i.e. the supermarket itself. I used to design these systems, and in the UK some of the biggest schemes have five times more subscribers than Bitcoin is estimated to have worldwide. The closest thing Bitcoin has to an internal market is the dark web.

2. Having an internal market removes all obstacles to the acceptance of a new currency in the early stages, i.e. everyone entering into the market does so freely, knowing that there is a single accepted unit of currency. This means there is no one to break the chain so to speak. No one can refuse to accept the currency or deny that it has 'value' without leaving the market itself.

3. Once an internal market has reached a certain size it is far more likely that an attempt to extend the currency's use beyond its own boundaries will be successful.

Ultimately though, the solution is for the human race to grow up and to stop dashing around after bits of paper and electromagnetic charges. This may sound like madness to some right now, but it will become increasingly easier to accept once jobs begin to disappear and it becomes harder and harder to actually dash around after bits of paper and electromagnetic charges.

HS

Lest I'm misunderstood, I don't disagree with what you say or your synopsis of the development of Bitcoin.


The internet itself can spread the idea. Bitcoin is an idea, the internet is the tool used to disseminate it.


My questions are intended to get people thinking about whether Bitcoin itself is the answer. Let me put it this way. The UK (and the US I believe) is currently running the second series of a TV programme called "Humans". It depicts an alternate present in which most human labour is performed by synthetics. It's a play on the scenario we can expect to see once smart technology really starts to have an impact beyond the so-called 'smart TV'. The strange thing about the series is that the people in it still use fiat: money issued as debt that has to be earned. Who's earning it though? It could be argued that people are sending their synthetics out into the workplace to 'earn' money for them, but can you think of a more ridiculous and surreal scenario than 'employing' a computer to 'earn' on your behalf? At this level of abstraction, the process of earning money becomes nothing more than a simulation.

What I mean by this is that we have created an artificial link in our heads between performing a function in society and earning money. As mentioned above, millions of people create goods and offer services just because they can. There is no fixed link between working and earning. So why would we need (or indeed want) to run a simulation predicated on computers earning money for us? Imagine you're a fisherman with a 'smart boat' that can go out to sea all by itself and bring in nets full of fish. Imagine that most other industries operate on a similar basis. What would you 'charge' people for your fish? Does it make any sense whatsoever to conceptualise your 'customer' as a 'debtor' who 'owes you' for your fish? If they had no money then would you tell your customers to 'employ' their own 'smart' machine to 'earn' money on their behalf so that they can 'pay you back'?

This is why I say we need to reconceptualise what money is. The logic of all existing monetary systems breaks down under these scenarios. The illusion can only be maintained by creating another even more ridiculous illusion, whereby computers are 'employed' to 'earn' on our behalf. The series I refer to above isn't science-fiction. It doesn't present us with a theoretical vision future of the future - it actually depicts the present. The 'future' is already here, but people do not see it because people do not think about and comprehend the time we're living in. Conceptually, people's heads are still somewhere in the 1970s and they address the digital revolution using terms, methods, and frames of reference that belong to the old analogue age. Some people are so far behind they even think electronic cash is a new idea.

"The first widely used service for wire transfers was launched by Western Union in 1872 on its existing telegraph network. Using passwords and code books, a telegraph operator in one office could "wire" money that had been paid to that office by the sending customer to another telegraph office to be paid out to the receiving customer. By 1877 the service was used to transfer almost $2.5 million each year."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_transfer#History

HS

Millions of people already donate their time without charge for all sorts of reasons. It's called volunteering. People volunteer for all sorts of reasons, but mostly because they believe in something or someone and enjoy being helpful and creative. You've heard of the Open-source movement? Lawyers working pro bono? So by definition, "labouring for a wage" is not the only means by which goods are produced and services offered. In my view, people are inherently restless and creative and like to find outlets for their creativity.

Some things are more scarce than others. Generally speaking, food isn't scarce - yet millions are malnourished and under-nourished. Water isn't scarce either, yet millions don't have access to clean drinking water. In my view, there's genuine scarcity and then there's the perception of scarcity fostered by the existing system. Where scarcity does exist, is it unsolvable? Many of these 'scarcity' issues could be solved (and solved intelligently, with a focus on minimising damage to the environment and maximising recycling potential) if only sufficient financial resources were available to solve them.


See above. Let me rephrase your statement as follows: money must not be scarce, else the problem of scarcity will never be solved.

I will also repeat what I said earlier: if the logic of technological development reduces the need for human labour then we have a problem, don't we? Your solution is to throw your hands in the air in despair and do nothing at all. That is no solution.


OK, it's Black Friday and the media will no doubt kick up a fuss about the pushing and pulling and fighting a very small number of people are willing to engage in just to get something they want. The vast majority of people are not like that. Ever been to a supermarket in the middle of a massive snowstorm? I have several times and most of the stuff I needed was already gone. I didn't fight anyone for what was left though. I didn't see anyone else fighting over what was left either. Nor did I read anything in the media about people fighting over what was left. Fact of the matter is, you're looking in the wrong direction. You're very specifically and deliberately looking at theoretical negatives while ignoring all the potential positives.

HS

Totally agree. It's not fantasy but perfectly realisable. Ironically, money has brought us to this point, yet money is also holding us back and preventing full exploitation of existing technologies and more rapid development of new technologies.


In terms of theory, economists still quote Adam Smith and we still talk about economic 'rules' and 'laws' as if they are fixed and unchangeable when they are not. If the creation of money can be decentralised at the level of the individual and made available to all (not just those who can afford to invest in mining rigs) then everything changes. If the foundation of monetary systems and economic theory is the belief that money is 'scarce', must be issued as 'debt', and must be 'earned' by human labour then true decentralisation will undermine this foundation and bring the whole edifice crashing down. It represents a paradigm shift no less significant than the shift from Newton to Einstein and the rise of quantum physics.

Here's the thing though: "God does not play dice" --Albert Einstein

Einstein allowed beliefs based on an obsolete paradigm to cloud his perception of the new paradigm. A new paradigm requires a fresh set of eyes and a new way of thinking. I think there are many people on this board who are making Einstein's mistake. They want to sift through the detritus of the old system and retain concepts such as 'inflation' and 'scarcity', not realising that these concepts are no longer relevant. There is nothing 'scarce' about a 'digital coin' and it is pointless to pretend otherwise. We really do need to think outside the box and acknowledge that a new paradigm challenges us to adopt new ways of thinking.

HS

No worries. Just to note, I'm definitely pro-technology.



The short version is that the average person's problem with money is not having enough of it. That's their primary concern. They don't really care whether their money is held by a central source or in a decentralised ledger, because they're too busy struggling to pay bills and worrying about the future. Not just the immediate future but whether they'll have enough to retire on, or even if they'll ever be able to retire. That's the point we're at right now.

I do not think people understand the impact the latest batch of smart technology is about to have. I mentioned the driver-less car above. I was a teenager in the 1980s and used to watch Knight Rider. The idea of a car that could talk and drive itself seemed like science-fiction, yet thirty years later it's about to become reality. I remember watching an episode of The Simpsons about self-driving trucks. That too is about to become a reality. Millions of people are going to lose their livelihoods. OK, we can say that more tech jobs will be created as a result, but nowhere near enough to replace the jobs lost. And people are different, aren't they? Not everyone has the aptitude to become a programmer or an engineer.

The problem as I see it is that technological development eliminates the need for human labour, yet we conceptualise money as a 'debt' and tell people it has to be 'earned' by human labour. What happens when our level of technological development reaches the point where entire sectors of the employment market are made redundant overnight? Will we become Luddites and fight for our right to perform tedious, mind-numbing jobs in order to put food in our belly and a roof over our head?

Bitcoin has made it self-evident that money is a technology. Unlike other technologies, money hasn't adapted to changing circumstances and human needs. What really interests me about Bitcoin is that, in effect, computers are making money. There's nothing particularly new about that (banks and stock markets have been doing it for ages) but Bitcoin demonstrates that, in theory, the process of money creation itself can be decentralised. For me, the obvious question to ask is how far can we take that decentralisation? Personally, not only do I think we have to totally reconceptualise what money is, I think the logic of technological development is going to take us down that road whether we like it or not. I mean, if people don't earn then they don't eat, so what happens when they can't earn because jobs are no longer available?

HS

First of all - thanks for your reply and for taking the time and trouble to go into detail. I'm not saying that Bitcoin doesn't solve problems, only that the problems it does solve are not necessarily the same problems that people see in money.


Yeah, and I don't disagree with you. I know how inflation works, and with respect to you I wasn't asking for an explanation of how it works. Not having a dig, just saying.


I've referred to both countries on another thread and I'm still scratching my head. Under the circumstances, you would think that citizens of these countries would be desperately searching for alternatives - anything to avoid the need to exchange a wheelbarrow full of worthless fiat in return for a loaf of bread. It's not happening though, is it?


I've never disagreed with this. However, people will not see this as a 'benefit' per se unless they have already experienced this violence first hand. In other words, I don't think this is right at the top of people's priority list when they think about money. To offer an analogy, it's a bit like asking people if preparing for the possibility of inter-racial violence is top of their list of concerns in relation to how they interact with people. If you're Jewish or a citizen of Rwanda then you might conceivably answer 'yes' to this, but it falls outside the boundaries of most people's experience - and therefore their concerns. To be absolutely clear - I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just trying to look at it from the perspective of the man or woman on the street with no personal experience of state confiscation.


Again, I don't disagree with you. People need an alternative. Let me put it this way though. Say you're a middle-aged Cypriot taxi driver and the entire nation suddenly switches to Bitcoin. Now imagine you're the same Cypriot taxi driver and, six months later, Uber suddenly introduces a fleet of driver-less taxis and you're suddenly in the impossible position of competing with a machine. You find yourself unemployed. Maybe you can drive a bus instead? Except they've gone driver-less too. Maybe you can work in one of the Bitcoin-related financial services organisations that will have sprung up to replace the banking industry? Chances are they'll be online/virtual too so probably not. You're just an 'ordinary' bloke so what do you do?

I mentioned a technological revolution. Just what do we do in the light of this? Create a bunch of fictional jobs out of thin air and have them suck resources out of businesses? Maybe the state can invent these jobs and suck resources out of taxpayers instead? What exactly do we do and how does Bitcoin address these kind of issues? To repeat - I'm not saying that Bitcoin has no benefits, only that it doesn't tackle the issues I'm talking about. Specifically:

1. More and more people fighting for fewer and fewer full-time and/or permanent jobs
2. More and more people working two or three low paid jobs just to make ends meet
2. Better standards of healthcare and greater longevity
3. A massive pensions and savings hole with nothing to fill the gap


No, I'm just asking the questions that everyone else seems to be avoiding.

HS

Take a look at this: http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/11/22/self-driving-car-test-its-skills-boston-fleet-cars-slated-grow-beyond-singapore

And this: http://www.pymnts.com/chatbot-tracker/2016/chatbot-tracker-shipping-gifts-and-customer-return-rate/

Imagine the above applied to the millions of driving and customer service jobs out there. It's coming, isn't it? It's going to happen. Technology reduces the need for human labour, and therein lies the problem. The way we look at money amounts to "It has to be earned because it represents a 'debt' you have to 'pay off' and if you want to live then you have to work", but the logic of technological development reduces the availability of work. There are already millions of people having to work two or even three part-time jobs just to make ends meet. Millions more are under-employed and rely on state handouts.

What is the purpose and nature of Bitcoin in relation to this? We're in the early stages of a technological revolution and we're still trying to address the problems it is creating by using technologies and methods from an earlier era. This is why I suggested elsewhere that Bitcoin has reinvented the wheel, i.e. it has reinvented the coin in digital form. But has reinventing the coin actually solved anything?

HS

Totally agree that it's an alternative medium of exchange and that some governments are very scared about the loss of control it represents. As for the reason Bitcoin hasn't taken off, I think the answer can be found in what people talk about when they talk about money. I mean, when people talk about the stuff they usually talk about how much everything costs and not having enough of it. They worry about being able to pay off the mortgage, car, taxes, put food on the table, and still have enough to save for the future. Millions of people are in this situation. Billions more are just worrying about being able to eat.

I think Bitcoin has shown us that money is a technology - and that's exactly what Bitcoin is, isn't it? Like any technology, it has to be assessed on how useful it is and what problems it solves. If a technology doesn't solve problems (or only solves problems for a minority) then what use is it? I mean, if the problem is that a minority have more money than they know what to do with (while everyone else worries about not having enough) then does decentralising money or making money more secure solve that problem?

HS

See point 1 above. Do you mean 'with'?


Have I not already said that I'm talking about Bitcoin? Please refer to the title of this thread, then re-read the questions that appear in the first paragraph of my opening comment. I asked the same questions half-a-dozen posts later because none of the answers I received actually addressed them.

I have specifically asked how people would explain the benefits of an existing currency called Bitcoin to non-Bitcoin users, with a view to determining how they would persuade a non-Bitcoin user to switch to Bitcoin. I have also asked whether Bitcoin conveys any benefits that people actually need. I think my views on the subject are clear, but I was asking people to explain their views on the existing benefits of Bitcoin vis-a-vis fiat currencies and other e-payment systems. Do you understand?


Again, the purpose was and still is to discuss Bitcoin (it's purpose and nature) as it currently exists, not a cryptocurrency which does not currently exist. OK?

HS

1. If you intend to lecture people on their reading comprehension then first learn how to spell and construct a sentence.
2. You are again referring to my proposal even though this thread is about Bitcoin.
3. The 'answer' provided is an answer to your own question, not mine.

I will pose my question as a very simple statement in the hope you actually get it this time: "The benefits of Bitcoin do not meet people's real-world needs, i.e. Bitcoin is not a real alternative to fiat."

Do you agree with this statement or not? Yes or No? If you do not agree then why?

HS

What 'physical asset' does Bitcoin offer? It is a virtual currency, not a physical asset. If what you're saying is true then why would anyone ever use Bitcoin? Think back to when it was first introduced - someone took a leap of faith and decided to use it. Or do you think it sprang into existence overnight complete with bitcoin exchanges, bitcoin ATMs, a few millions users, and an equivalence value against the dollar, sterling, etc?


This thread is not about my proposal. It is about bitcoin. Nevertheless...

1. What my proposal actually does is remove cost considerations in relation to recycling and environmental concerns, thus making it possible to maximise the resources that are available. It also allows for massive input into R&D to develop new and innovative technologies to address these issues.

2. See above. When Hal Finney performed the first bitcoin transaction, did he do so because bitcoin was a physical asset or backed by a physical asset? No he did not. He took a leap of faith and used the software, which was all bitcoin was at the time. Was Hal Finney a fool? If I employ your logic then it becomes impossible to conceive how bitcoin has got to where it is right now without assuming that each and every bitcoin user is a fool.


Again, think back to the early days. Bitcoin may be backed up by fiat now, but was it backed by fiat right from the start? Was it backed by anything more than the early adopters' belief that it might have some future utility?

You still haven't answered any of my questions. I'll give you the short version again. My contention is that the reason people aren't abandoning fiat in favour of bitcoin is that a) the benefits bitcoin offers do not actually correspond with their wants and needs, and b) bitcoin doesn't offer them anything more than what existing monetary systems offer, i.e. it is the existing systems in an alternative form rather than an actual alternative. Do you disagree? If so, why?

HS

I'm still waiting for answers though. Why don't you have a go? According to jbreher, these are the benefits of Bitcoin:


Ayers says:


Some people would benefit from reduced fees, provided they're not one of the billions who can barely afford to live yet alone send money abroad. Zimbabwe? Venezuela? Any massive increase in the volume of bitcoin transactions and wallet ownership to suggest that citizens of these countries are switching to Bitcoin? Let's face it: if citizens of these countries can't be persuaded then who can?

Seven years after its introduction and Bitcoin has what? Two million users globally? Three million? Maybe five million? I'll be generous and say ten million. Could it be that there's a chronic mismatch between what Bitcoin provides and what people actually want or need? That in terms of what they want and need, Bitcoin provides them with nothing that the existing system doesn't already provide? That it's not a real alternative?

HS

Hi. This was my question: "What does Bitcoin actually do that other monetary systems do not do?" But it didn't end there and continued with "For example, how would you explain Bitcoin to the millions of M-pesa users in Tanzania and Kenya. In what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation, bearing in mind: a) the fact that many people do not have regular or reliable access to electricity and charge old mobile phones (held together with duct tape) from a central source, b) the cost of 'mining' bitcoin, and c) the fact that these people (and billions like them) will never, ever be able to afford to 'mine' so much as a single bitcoin?"

The purpose of my question was to determine whether Bitcoin offers sufficient benefits to persuade M-pesa users to switch to Bitcoin instead. No one has answered this question. What I'm trying to understand is why M-pesa has gained 20 millions users in just two countries in the space of nine years, whereas Bitcoin has been around for seven years and doesn't come close to this figure even on a global scale. Why?

HS

It's interesting that you refer to it in religious terms re: "Then and only then can it be idolized so that it may rule over all." I take your comment with a pinch of salt, but you're not the first to portray it like this. A few days ago, someone told me that he would refuse to do anything that "violated the sanctity of the global ledger", as if the global ledger is a virgin goddess who sits in a temple and must be worshipped from afar.

I'm not religious, but many translations of the bible interpret 'sin' as 'debt', i.e. "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." - see Matthew 6:12

Bankers don't like to talk about 'debt forgiveness'. Some of them even think it's 'immoral'.

"A neutral entity that does not believe in right or wrong in order to evade the effects of karma."

Think about what a financial transaction amounts to. You walk into a shop, are 'charged' as a debtor, found 'guilty' by default, and ordered to hand over a token symbol of your 'guilt' to 'pay off' your debt. It's ridiculous though, because the token symbols we use are promises to pay (actual and digital promissory notes) that can only be converted into other promises to pay. OK, you can exchange a promise to pay for goods and services, but that just repeats the above cycle. You can only convert a £5 note into another £5 note, or other denominations of debt representing the same amount. We are asked to repay debt with debt, which makes the debt meaningless precisely because it can never be repaid. If you think about how modern money is created then it quickly becomes apparent that the debt never existed in the first place - it's just an illusion. It can't be paid back because it was never supposed to be paid back, because it doesn't really exist.

We have literally made an idol of money. All forms of money are just symbols that we attach meaning to. A dollar is just a dollar sign, and a pound is just a pound sign. The virtualisation of money itself makes this even more clear, because we're worshipping a non-existent entity - just the symbol (£/$/BTC etc.) itself.

I say that we should stop pretending that this debt is real and stop perceiving other people as 'debtors'.

Less of this:

More of this:

If we're going to talk about it in religious terms then I say "There is no god but man."

HS

Hi. That's not an answer to my question though. Please see my reply to Pursuer above.


Please see my reply to Pursuer above.


That's exactly my point, i.e. Bitcoin is a simulation of mining. So what is the point you're trying to make here?


My bank stores a number as an electromagnetic charge on a storage medium, so I already know my balance doesn't exist in any 'real' form. What would happen if you could flick a switch and turn off the electricity supply to your town or city? How 'real' would your balance (in Bitcoin or otherwise) be then?

Approach someone on the street, show them the ledger, and tell them it represents 'proof of trust'. Will they accept this at face value or will they ask for an explanation? Will your explanation be self-referential (i.e. the ledger exists, therefore it is 'proof of trust') or will you have to explain the code behind the ledger so that they understand how the ledger is created? Above and beyond even that, would they take your word for it? Trust is neither code nor data but a state that exists in the human mind.


No, I'm using a specific group of people as a test case in an attempt to get someone to explain what the practical benefits of Bitcoin are to those who do not currently use Bitcoin. It really doesn't matter if the people in question are in Tanzania or Texas. What is the incentive for choosing Bitcoin over fiat? What does Bitcoin offer that fiat doesn't? Next time you overhear someone moaning about money why don't you go over to them, explain how Bitcoin can solve their problems, and let me know what they say?

HS

This is not an answer to my question though. What motivation is there for an M-pesa user to switch to Bitcoin? Please don't invent your own question and provide an answer to it - answer my question instead. Also, please note that M-pesa was introduced only two years before Bitcoin and currently has over 20 million registered users. I can assure you that people in these countries are aware of Bitcoin - so why aren't they making the switch?


The process of 'mining' bitcoin has everything to do with using bitcoin, because without it there would be no bitcoin. Who is this "none of us" you refer to? Is no one 'mining' bitcoin?


I mean in terms of their function within their respective 'universes'. A central bank creates fiat and banks create 'bank credit money'. Bitcoin 'miners' perform the same function within the Bitcoin 'universe'. Assume for a moment that people were to abandon fiat in droves overnight. Bitcoin would need to offer the same kind of services the existing system offers. People would want to 'borrow' bitcoin - some people already are. They would want 'bitcoin mortgages'. How would that work? Who would they borrow from if not bitcoin miners who come together as a collective to offer a lending service? See above for a link to a court case involving a bitcoin loan, with the identities of those involved aired in public for all to see. Yes, that took place outside of Bitcoin so to speak, but it's a prime example of what I'm talking about and what the future holds for Bitcoin if it were ever to gain mass acceptance.

Imagine you have $500,000 in bitcoin and decide to lend out the equivalent of $250,000 as a mortgage. Would you lend that amount to an anonymous entity? Would you lend it without knowing if that anonymous entity is actually capable of paying back the loan? I think not, and this suggests to me that Bitcoin is not a real alternative to existing monetary systems but merely the existing monetary system in another guise.

HS

This makes no difference though. OK, imagine you're a Tanzanian and, like most Tanzanians, you live in a small village and in all likelihood do not have your own electricity supply. You only have a battered old phone, which you charge at a central source such as the village shop, and you use the M-pesa system. Will you ever be able to afford to mine bitcoin? No. The only thing you can do is convert Tanzanian shillings into bitcoin. But why would you? What's the advantage? Will the process of converting shillings to bitcoin make you richer? Will it put food in your mouth? Will it help you pay for the anti-malaria drugs you can't afford? I was in Mombasa a few years ago and saw a man get kicked out into the street and left to die because he couldn't afford medical treatment. He literally died on the pavement. What difference would Bitcoin make?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country


And yet the way Bitcoin operates means that bitcoin mining is just a dream to most people. Like existing monetary systems, it creates two classes: those who generate the currency and those who can do nothing more than use it as a medium of exchange. Ever heard of a bitcoin loan?

http://www.coindesk.com/judge-rules-in-peer-to-peer-bitcoin-lending-lawsuit/

HS

Digital money has existed for decades though. It has already 'risen'. Just take a look at your bank account or complete a credit or debit card transaction. They too are examples of digital money. The vast majority of 'money' currently in existence is digital money, not paper and coin. Bitcoin is an alternative form of digital money, but it is not a real alternative. In practical terms, it does not 'do' anything existing currencies don't already do. It does not actually address 'real-world' problems.

HS

The question was in what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation. What does Bitcoin offer them that M-pesa doesn't? I've travelled extensively in both countries and I can assure you that they will want to know how Bitcoin helps them feed their children and stops them dying of malaria. What is the incentive for making the switch? The same question can be asked the world over. Look at what happened in 2008. We're still living with that, yet there has not been a mass transition from fiat to Bitcoin. Could it be that this mass transition has not happened (and will never happen) because Bitcoin has nothing to offer people in terms of real change?


I should have added, in the sense that bitcoin are created by the process of 'mining' bitcoin. In the Bitcoin universe, the process of bitcoin 'mining' is analogous to the function of central banks and private banks re: the creation of 'bank credit money'.


Of course, because Bitcoin is 'virtual' money. It is not merely a metaphor though, because Bitcoin 'miners' have to invest CPU cycles and electricity in order to find a random nonce and be rewarded with new bitcoin. They are in this sense 'prospecting' for bitcoin. So in what way is Bitcoin not a mining simulation?


I could say the same thing about the transactions that appear in my online bank account. If a fraudulent transaction appears then it appears because someone else has obtained my details, in the same way someone else can obtain a private key if it's not properly secured. So, do you think that 'trust' can only be established via the "sanctity of the global ledger"? Can trust be established by decree or with a few lines of code? If I were to tell you that someone is trustworthy and present you with a few lines of code as 'proof of trust' then would you take my word for it? Or would you want to interact with that person and draw your own conclusion?


I wasn't asking if Bitcoin is flawless but whether Bitcoin replicates existing flaws. See my reply above re: M-pesa There are billions of people on this planet surviving on $10 per day or less - 71% of the world population according to one study. What is the 'purpose' of Bitcoin in relation to these people? Does it do anything whatsoever to address their situation? If not, then is Bitcoin any different than fiat?

HS

Just a carry over from another thread. You still have nothing to offer in terms of a critique of my proposal, which is freely available for anyone to read. You've yet to address so much as a single line of it. Just more insults, more assumptions about what you think people want to hear. If you refer back to the other thread you allude to then there's a familiar pattern isn't there? I ask a question and the response is an insult. I ask to be provided with something of substance in support of an assertion and the response is an insult. I would of thought it was obvious by now that I refuse to be 'baited' by insults and respond with the same.


I have not mentioned Wei Dai in the above or the other thread you allude to.


Yes, be kind and be for (i.e. in favour of) giving, rather than dishing out illusory 'pay back'.

HS