But why not stop those bitcoins from being traded ASAP. You keep (intentionally) ignoring this question. Who would do this? On what authority? How would they do it? In related news the top 500 bitcoin addresses are mine and were just stolen please freeze them. Failure to understand Bitcoin will indeed cost investors billions. 744,408 BTC stolen (nearly 7% of total mined coins to date) and some people seem to be cheering like this is a good thing because they don’t like (long despised) MtGox. This is far far from over. Where did those stolen coins go? Well check your wallet because they were likely fed back to the markets. If you have been buying bitcoins on any exchange chances are you have some of the stolen loot yourself. These stolen coins can be traced back to their true owner in a direct chain of title thanks to the block chain. If you don’t think this matters you don’t understand the legal system and the principle of Nemo dat quod non habet Under both American and English law the original owner of stolen property can demand ownership be returned to him if he can prove a chain of title (something the blockchain conveniently provides). The only recourse for an innocent buyer of stolen goods (and only in some jurisdictions) is to argue the exchange it was bought from had an implied warranty and he can try to sue the exchange after returning the coins to the true owner. MtGox is insolvent good luck there. BTC-e is run by anonymous folks think they will stick around in the face of massive lawsuits? ... Regardless expect all future exchanges to require both rigorous identity checks prior to buying and selling as well as fine print stating that anyone who supplies coins to a market is ultimately responsible in the event those coins are determined to be “black” or stolen goods in the future. Still think there is no need for truly anonymous cryptocurrency? |
|
|
|
A couple of interesting links. How Bitcoin could become its antithesis First off let me say right away that I’m a newbie. I’ve known about Bitcoin for a few years, and have been watching from afar, but only recently decided to immerse myself in the technical details — and equally important, the culture. I stayed away out of a suspicion that one of Bitcoin’s main claimed virtues (privacy) was oversold, and because I knew that it would hard for me to get into Bitcoin in a casual way.
What I’ve found so far is a an environment that’s far more complex and captivating then I’d imagined. It could help liberate the world from the chains of fait currency and the banking establishment, but it could also become a powerful tool for statist control. I’m sure this latter possibility is inconceivable to many within the space, but it would’t be the first time a vehicle of liberation spun around 180 degrees.
From what I can tell, the early adopters of Bitcoin skewed heavily libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, Rothbardian. As use of Bitcoin spreads to the general public, the culture surrounding it changes, becomes more mainstream. There’s a long history of online communities which, over time, became hostile to the original crowd and their laissez-faire ideals. Slashdot, Wired, Reddit. You can see the transition happening right now in the comments section at Zerohedge.
The reaction to the fall of MtGox shows that many Bitcoiners are now muggles (or matrix dwellers, if you prefer). These new users were raised on an intellectual diet of “market failure” and “much needed government regulation.” Their first instinct when things go wrong is to look for government to fix it. They’re comfortable with filing requirements, identity verification, withdrawal limits. They’re shocked to find out the BTC exchanges don’t have deposit insurance.
Here we get to an essential weakness of the protocol, at least so far as how it compares to the promised benefits. As a pseudonymous currency with a full public ledger of transactions, the privacy of everyone depends on the privacy of everyone else. Every single input and output from the real world to Bitcoin (every wire transfer you send to an exchange, every purchase of items shipped to your home), is a potential crack in the veil of privacy not just for you, but for everyone else.
I can see that developers are working on interesting technologies, like CoinJoin, which could be baked into the the protocol to enhance privacy. But right now, securing your privacy within Bitcoin requires additional, complicated steps (using tumblers, creating a new address for each transaction). The lessons from PGP email could not be more clear: if it’s a hassle, the vast majority of users won’t do it, which means that users of these privacy measures will be the ones who *really* need it. But because the defining feature of our new age is data interconnectivity, true privacy in can only come from increasing the amount of noise in the system, not decreasing the amount of signal. When the privacy of the network as a whole depends on individual users taking steps that make their lives more complicated, this privacy won’t survive.
Even if changes to the protocol make tracking harder by default, political changes could allow governments to view a nearly complete record of every BTC purchase and movement of funds. What’s going to happen if the IRS adds an addendum to the FBAR that requires you to list all of your public keys? What will happen when thousands of law-abiding citizens report their capital gains (and losses) from Bitcoin on their returns?
If your Bitcoin profits are turned into fiat and taxed to support the continued bailout of Wall Street, then nothing’s really changed. Bitcoin trading becomes one more acceptable way for people to make money that can be funneled back to the state and its favored groups.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s virtues compared to dealing with credit cards, in terms of lower transaction costs and reduced counter-party risk, could speed adoption among merchants, which in turn generates more data to connect buyers and sellers with public BTC addresses.
Volatility, transaction malleability, exchanges gone bad… to me these seem like minor issues, taking the long view. They’re not why I’m still looking in from the outside, without a single satoshi to my name. These aren’t the reasons I decided to write this open letter to the Bitcoin developers and community at large.
I’m writing this because I’m worried that Bitcoin could become a far greater threat to fiscal independence than anything that’s come before. The history of the United States itself should serve as a warning. What began with a constitution to strictly restrain the government’s role, and a Bill of Rights as safeguard, is now a leviathan with effectively unlimited power. The massive economic surplus, fostered by the country’s laissez-faire roots, is now used to fund the largest welfare-warfare state the world has ever known.
Failure to Understand Bitcoin Could Cost Investors Billions Failure to understand Bitcoin will indeed cost investors billions. 744,408 BTC stolen (nearly 7% of total mined coins to date) and some people seem to be cheering like this is a good thing because they don’t like (long despised) MtGox. This is far far from over. Where did those stolen coins go? Well check your wallet because they were likely fed back to the markets. If you have been buying bitcoins on any exchange chances are you have some of the stolen loot yourself. These stolen coins can be traced back to their true owner in a direct chain of title thanks to the block chain. If you don’t think this matters you don’t understand the legal system and the principle of Nemo dat quod non habet Under both American and English law the original owner of stolen property can demand ownership be returned to him if he can prove a chain of title (something the blockchain conveniently provides). The only recourse for an innocent buyer of stolen goods (and only in some jurisdictions) is to argue the exchange it was bought from had an implied warranty and he can try to sue the exchange after returning the coins to the true owner. MtGox is insolvent good luck there. BTC-e is run by anonymous folks think they will stick around in the face of massive lawsuits? But cheer up there is still a chance most MtGox victims will get their coins back. The threat of massive unending lawsuits targeting innocent bitcoin buyers is an existential one for bitcoin. The 10-15 early adopters stand (by far) to lose the most if bitcoin goes down in flames. They might actually decide to buy out MtGox for the 744,408 bitcoins (an amount grossly exceeding the worth of the company) not because they are altruistic people, but because the chain of lawsuits that would follow if they don't act may hurt their holdings more than the loss of 744,408 bitcoins. It’s a lot of money, however, so its likely a difficult call for them. Regardless expect all future exchanges to require both rigorous identity checks prior to buying and selling as well as fine print stating that anyone who supplies coins to a market is ultimately responsible in the event those coins are determined to be “black” or stolen goods in the future. Still think there is no need for truly anonymous cryptocurrency? |
|
|
|
Failure to understand Bitcoin will indeed cost investors billions. 744,408 BTC stolen (nearly 7% of total mined coins to date) and some people seem to be cheering like this is a good thing because they don’t like (long despised) MtGox. This is far far from over. Where did those stolen coins go? Well check your wallet because they were likely fed back to the markets. If you have been buying bitcoins on any exchange chances are you have some of the stolen loot yourself. These stolen coins can be traced back to their true owner in a direct chain of title thanks to the block chain. If you don’t think this matters you don’t understand the legal system and the principle of Nemo dat quod non habet Under both American and English law the original owner of stolen property can demand ownership be returned to him if he can prove a chain of title (something the blockchain conveniently provides). The only recourse for an innocent buyer of stolen goods (and only in some jurisdictions) is to argue the exchange it was bought from had an implied warranty and he can try to sue the exchange after returning the coins to the true owner. MtGox is insolvent good luck there. BTC-e is run by anonymous folks think they will stick around in the face of massive lawsuits? But cheer up there is still a chance most MtGox victims will get their coins back. The threat of massive unending lawsuits targeting innocent bitcoin buyers is an existential one for bitcoin. The 10-15 early adopters stand (by far) to lose the most if bitcoin goes down in flames. They might actually decide to buy out MtGox for the 744,408 bitcoins (an amount grossly exceeding the worth of the company) not because they are altruistic people, but because the chain of lawsuits that would follow if they don't act may hurt their holdings more than the loss of 744,408 bitcoins. It’s a lot of money, however, so its likely a difficult call for them. Regardless expect all future exchanges to require both rigorous identity checks prior to buying and selling as well as fine print stating that anyone who supplies coins to a market is ultimately responsible in the event those coins are determined to be “black” or stolen goods in the future. Still think there is no need for truly anonymous cryptocurrency? |
|
|
|
You want to find redeeming qualities in socialism. I rather see socialism as power vacuum for the criminals to capture and no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I agree that a debate on the fundamental value of socialism vs anarchism could easily degenerate into a debate of ideology with both sides taking positions that are difficult to prove or falsify. I cannot resist adding, however, that the socialist position would start with your exact same quote with the mere substitution of the word anarchism for socialism. We agree that I am more socialist-leaning and you more anarchist-leaning. I strongly suspect that if we amused ourselves with such a debate it would eventually lead us right back to where we started ( Contentionism) so lets set that aside for now and focus areas of disagreement more likely to be fruitful. Physically it (fiat) is a comparatively a cheap system to run without the high cost of a proof of work system.
Not true. We have to pay for all the bloated government, VISA fees, and debt that central banking sustains. Proof-of-work is much less expensive. Correct but that is only our present condition. In theory... (stripped of all the fat) the actual technical cost to run a lean centralized fiat currency is (theoretically) cheaper. Emphatically disagree. The Communists always argue ideologically that it is more efficient to not have competition. However reality has proven their ideology to be more inefficient than decentralized competition... My argument is that in the future centralized fiat and decentralized anonymous cryptocurrencies are likely to both exist in competitive equilibrium. Agreed. But the only competitive advantage of fiat is force. Period. Force is not the only competitive advantage of digital fiat (although it may be the only competitive advantage of centralized government). Fiat is not limited to government. Potentially digital fiat can also try to leverage the opportunity cost associated with monetary debasement. You argue that there is no cost associated with the monetary debasement via proof of work because this debasement is needed to redistribute from large capital concentrations back to producers. Furthermore you correctly argue that without such debasement, we end up with the 1% aggregating all wealth and a feudal Dark Age. I agree with your conclusion regarding the need for debasement. However, you have failed to show that such debasement must be done entirely via proof of work. If there is a competitive alternative means of debasement then there is an opportunity cost in the process of directing all monetary debasement into proof of work. I believe digital fiat can potentially capture some market share by leveraging this opportunity cost. Let me give you a theoretical example. Hypothesize that in the future currency is dominated by a distributed cryptocurrency with proof of work and an optimal monetary debasement rate. A well run non-profit could then introduce a centralized fiat CharityCoin. This coin would undoubtedly copy wholesale most of the features of the leading cryptocurrency (as you stated the advantages of centralized economies of scale will never be techonological). CharityCoin's would have the same rate of monetary debasement as the leading cryptocurrency, but without proof of work it could redirect that monetary debasement towards different ends. Some of that debasement would have to be given back to the currency holders to compensate them for the risk of holding a centralized asset (proof of stake type system). However, if CharityCoin can run a sufficiently lean open and trustworthy organization presumably some of CharityCoin's monetary debasement could be directed to pay for the goals of the organization in this hypothetical case welfare for the destitute. Similarly other fiat coins could also exist as long as they were well run and paid the currency holders (via monetary debasement) a sufficient premium to justify the risk of holding the coin. Proof of work will not achieve the end goal of redistribution in the short term. As long as the 1% have a cartel on the energy industry they will still be able to redirect most of the gains from a proof of work monetary debasement back to themselves. I believe that a proof of work currency system will facilitate the gradual erosion of this cartel over time but this process is likely to take decades. Until the cartel is dismantled proof of of work will not effectively perform the redistribution function and this will need to be done via socialism. |
|
|
|
Physically it is a comparatively a cheap system to run without the high cost of a proof of work system.
Not true. We have to pay for all the bloated government, VISA fees, and debt that central banking sustains. Proof-of-work is much less expensive. Correct but that is only our present condition. In theory without all the bloated government, VISA fees, and debt (stripped of all the fat) the actual technical cost to run a lean centralized fiat currency is (theoretically) cheaper then a decentralized cryptocurrency. I will concede that this condition is nothing like the world we live in today. The point I am making here is that in theory fiat may become cost competitive again in the (probably distant) future once the waste is stripped from the system. I will clarify the OP in this area. Emphatically disagree. The Communists always argue ideologically that it is more efficient to not have competition. However reality has proven their ideology to be more inefficient than decentralized competition. Have you compared the uptime and reliability of a Microsoft server versus a Linux server. The Bazaar (decentralized, open source) model trumps the Cathedral (top-down, closed source) model for large scale systems. I wrote about this having the only known positive scaling law of software engineering. Only vertical markets such as finely tuned graphical software has so far resisted the Bazaar model. This appears to be our last remaining area of disagreement. I am not arguing that fiat currency will in a utopian (communist like future) become dominate once the inefficiency is ironed out. My argument is that in the future centralized fiat and decentralized anonymous cryptocurrencies are likely to both exist in competitive equilibrium. The existence of this competition will drive progress forward in both currency types. Centralized fiat systems perhaps released by a world government or trusted corporation will try to copy the best ideas from the decentralized systems while attempting to leverage economies of scale (lack of proof of work, single server). These advantages will be offset by the the inefficiencies that occur with the cathedral model, the tendencies of all centralized systems to fail, and the power vacuum. Fiat currencies that successfully exploit economies of scale while restraining their natural tendency to abuse their vested authority may survive. Fiat currencies that do not will cease to exist as people vote with their feet and move to decentralized options. Similarly, competition will drive progress forward for cryptocurrencies. As you pointed out many of the current advantages of fiat can eventually be replicated in cryptocurrencies through innovation. Competition with fiat will drive the transaction time for cryptocurrency down over time. Decentralized cryptocurrencies will undoubtably be safer stores of value without the risk of trusting a central issuer. This safety comes at the expense of directing monetary inflation to pay for proof of work. I can not think of any advantage for a top-down digital ("electronic" is not correct term, as digits can be written on paper wallets) fiat. Even it would enable the criminals to take over everything.
The only advantage of a top-down digital currency is that it would allow some monetary inflation to be used for purposes other than proof of work. For example, monetary inflation could be used to pay for the necessary constraints on the dynamic system (aka pay for the cost of addressing market failures until a free market solution can be found). This efficiency can only be achieved, however, in the setting of a robust decentralized alternative or the fiat system will collapse for the reasons outlined in the Economic Devastation thread. |
|
|
|
Some of the critiques above are the result of a lack of clarity in the OP rather then disagreement. I will clarify those areas and respond to the remaining areas of possible disagreement. Fiat's advantages include reversible transactions with the ability to go to the court system in the event of fraud or theft.
Multi-party signature in Bitcoin and contracts in Ethereum allow for escrow and reversible transactions. The court system is orthogonal to which currency is used. Perhaps but any transaction that might needs court intervention will need to be done in a non-anonymous way. Also at least for the immediate future the courts are likely to take fiat claims more seriously. I would argue that this is a current advantage of fiat although technology and case law in the court system may undermine this advantage over time. Physically it is a comparatively a cheap system to run without the high cost of a proof of work system.
Not true. We have to pay for all the bloated government, VISA fees, and debt that central banking sustains. Proof-of-work is much less expensive. Correct but that is only our present condition. In theory without all the bloated government, VISA fees, and debt (stripped of all the fat) the actual technical cost to run a lean centralized fiat currency is (theoretically) cheaper then a decentralized cryptocurrency. I will concede that this condition is nothing like the world we live in today. The point I am making here is that in theory fiat may become cost competitive again in the (probably distant) future once the waste is stripped from the system. I will clarify the OP in this area. Regulation makes the market predictable and acts to stabilize value.
Incorrect. Regulation makes everything less predictable because fitness is stomped on. I concede this point and will remove that comment from the OP Its largest weakness, however, is that it can be debased at will by the central issuer leading to an erosion of value.
The erosion-of-value is a very positive and necessary function. The negative of central banking is the ability to direct where the debasement goes. It is crucially important to stop conflating these two. Seems all goldbugs are stuck in this conflation. I meant that centralized debasement at will was the greatest negative of fiat. I will try and clarify this in the OP Likewise for the other comments about debasement. I agree that gradual debasement over time is a necessary function for a successful cryptocurrency. Transaction times must also be slower than those of a fiat system.
I believe there can be a technical solution to make them fast enough (as in seconds). No one to my knowledge had developed such a solution. Until they do the statement stands on its merits. We agree that top-down organization will shrink in relative size into the future perhaps after peaking first in the next few years. We have not fully explored just how much top-down organization is optimum or how quickly it will shrink. I suspect consensus on those issues would be difficult to obtain However, it is the broad trends rather then the minutia that are important. |
|
|
|
As the following was largely derived from the ideas discussed upthread I am reposting it here for those interested. The Future of Cryptocurrency: A Contentionist Analysis With cryptocurrency we appear to be on at the beginnings of something entirely new. There is no denying that the technology is both novel and potentially revolutionary. Its very nature threatens the long held government monopoly on currency. We indeed live in interesting times. Today we see new cryptocurrencies released on an almost daily basis. Will any of these be valuable? Will the instigator Bitcoin retain its value? The purpose of this post is to analyze cryptocurrency using the principles of Contentionism and make informed predictions about the role of cryptocurrency in the future. To predict the future we must first fully grasp the present. Let’s start with a look at the strengths and weakness of the future contenders. Centralized Electronic Fiat <---> Hybrid Currency <---> Anonymous Distributed Cryptocurrency Electronic Fiat: Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated Fiat currency despite its bad press has strengths as well as weaknesses. Its advantages include easily reversible transactions with the ability to go to the court system in cases of fraud or theft. Theoretically (on a purely technical basis) fiat should be a comparatively a cheap system to run without the high cost of a proof of work system. These strengths are offset by some very large disadvantages. Electronic fiat is centralized with a single point of failure. It is non-anonymous with significant implications regarding privacy. Its largest weakness, however, is that it can be (and is) debased at will by the central issuer. Anonymous Distributed Cryptocurrency (ADC): The bane of centralized control Such a currency is decentralized, anonymous, and untraceable. Decentralization removes the possibility of a single point of failure. Anonymity protects privacy concerns. Such a currency would be protected from any centralized debasement efforts and be essentially untaxable. As a small predictable debasement is desirable in a currency this could be done in a decentralized fashion. These benefits come at a price. The decentralized nature of the system requires expensive proof of work computations to protect the network. This must be paid for either via monetary inflation, or transaction fees. Transaction times must also be slower than those of a fiat system. Finally, the direct challenge to tax collection may cause governments to outlaw these in some countries. Despite this it seems very possible that anonymous distributed cryptocurrency will come to dominate the virtual economy. Hybrid Currency Systems: A non-anonymous coin for the physical economy Many cryptocurrencies will try to take a middle ground and hope to retain their decentralization while falling into line with regulation. Such a system will lose anonymity while (hopefully) retaining decentralization. If decentralization can be maintained it can be taxed but it cannot be debased by a central authority. Lack of anonymity may open up the possibility for reversal of transactions (via mandated court order). Any such Hybrid system regardless of design will be vulnerable capture and forced conversion to electronic fiat (more on this below). If it can survive centralization efforts a hybrid system may come to dominate the physical economy. Given these features what will be the use of each of these forms of currency in the future? Electronic Fiat: Will likely be preferred for transactions that are high risk and have a high likelihood of transaction reversal. It will also be used to pay taxes. We need only look at the preference of ASIC buyers to use credit cards and the current low price of Bitcoins on MtGox to see this. Anonymous Distributed Cryptocurrency: Will find a home in the virtual economy. It is likely to be used for nonphysical transactions and for small transaction with a limited need for reversibility. It will also be used for the purchase of illicit goods as well as a mechanism for tax avoidance. In times of government insanity (massive taxation, unrestrained fiat debasement, extra) such currencies will offer an escape hatch for those looking to flee centralized control. Hybrid Currency Systems: Hybrid systems will be decentralized but lacking anonymity will be inherently venerable to centralization and government capture. Sufficient government effort can force centralization of any non-anonymous system. Government will be loath to give up the power of money printing. It will thus have a strong tendency to capture any strong hybrid system so that it can be converted into electronic fiat. A Hybrid system can only survive if this tendency is checked. Understanding the future possibilities is facilitated by an understanding of the underlying dynamics of Contentionism in the economy. Contentionism is the realization that socialism (top-down organization) must exist, while acknowledging the cyclical failures of socialism and the necessary counter-balancing force of anarchism. The concept of Contentionism is explored in depth in the Economic Devastation thread so I will refer readers there for further explanation. Future currencies are likely to trifurcate into one of the three classes discussed above. Value will likewise shift based on the underlying dynamic balance in the economy. In times of debt free responsible governance, fiat will be preferred and rise in relative value. In times such as ours cryptocurrencies are likely to dominate. Governments will have the ability to destroy any successful hybrid system via forced conversion to electronic fiat. However to do so would force much of the value stored there into anonymous distributed cryptocurrencies (beyond government reach) this fact may or may not restrain government from attempting such actions. |
|
|
|
In The Future of Cryptocurrency I posit that the existence of decentralized anonymous cryptocurrency is needed to protect weaker forms of non-anonymous cryptocurrency from government capture and centralization. |
|
|
|
With cryptocurrency we appear to be on at the beginnings of something entirely new. There is no denying that the technology is both novel and potentially revolutionary. Its very nature threatens the long held government monopoly on currency. We indeed live in interesting times. Today we see new cryptocurrencies released on an almost daily basis. Will any of these be valuable? Will the instigator Bitcoin retain its value? The purpose of this post is to analyze cryptocurrency using the principles of Contentionism and make informed predictions about the role of cryptocurrency in the future. To predict the future we must first fully grasp the present. Let’s start with a look at the strengths and weakness of the future contenders. Centralized Electronic Fiat <---> Hybrid Currency <---> Anonymous Distributed Cryptocurrency Electronic Fiat: Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated Fiat currency despite its bad press has strengths as well as weaknesses. Its advantages include easily reversible transactions with the ability to go to the court system in cases of fraud or theft. Theoretically (on a purely technical basis) fiat should be a comparatively a cheap system to run without the high cost of a proof of work system. These strengths are offset by some very large disadvantages. Electronic fiat is centralized with a single point of failure. It is non-anonymous with significant implications regarding privacy. Its largest weakness, however, is that it can be (and is) debased at will by the central issuer. Anonymous Distributed Cryptocurrency (ADC): The bane of centralized control Such a currency is decentralized, anonymous, and untraceable. Decentralization removes the possibility of a single point of failure. Anonymity protects privacy concerns. Such a currency would be protected from any centralized debasement efforts and be essentially untaxable. As a small predictable debasement is desirable in a currency this could be done in a decentralized fashion. These benefits come at a price. The decentralized nature of the system requires expensive proof of work computations to protect the network. This must be paid for either via monetary inflation, or transaction fees. Transaction times must also be slower than those of a fiat system. Finally, the direct challenge to tax collection may cause governments to outlaw these in some countries. Despite this it seems very possible that anonymous distributed cryptocurrency will come to dominate the virtual economy. Hybrid Currency Systems: A non-anonymous coin for the physical economy Many cryptocurrencies will try to take a middle ground and hope to retain their decentralization while falling into line with regulation. Such a system will lose anonymity while (hopefully) retaining decentralization. If decentralization can be maintained it can be taxed but it cannot be debased by a central authority. Lack of anonymity may open up the possibility for reversal of transactions (via mandated court order). Any such Hybrid system regardless of design will be vulnerable capture and forced conversion to electronic fiat (more on this below). If it can survive centralization efforts a hybrid system may come to dominate the physical economy. Given these features what will be the use of each of these forms of currency in the future? Electronic Fiat: Will likely be preferred for transactions that are high risk and have a high likelihood of transaction reversal. It will also be used to pay taxes. We need only look at the preference of ASIC buyers to use credit cards and the current low price of Bitcoins on MtGox to see this. Anonymous Distributed Cryptocurrency: Will find a home in the virtual economy. It is likely to be used for nonphysical transactions and for small transaction with a limited need for reversibility. It will also be used for the purchase of illicit goods as well as a mechanism for tax avoidance. In times of government insanity (massive taxation, unrestrained fiat debasement, extra) such currencies will offer an escape hatch for those looking to flee centralized control. Hybrid Currency Systems: Hybrid systems will be decentralized but lacking anonymity will be inherently venerable to centralization and government capture. Sufficient government effort can force centralization of any non-anonymous system. Government will be loath to give up the power of money printing. It will thus have a strong tendency to capture any strong hybrid system so that it can be converted into electronic fiat. A Hybrid system can only survive if this tendency is checked. Understanding the future possibilities is facilitated by an understanding of the underlying dynamics of Contentionism in the economy. Contentionism is the realization that socialism (top-down organization) must exist, while acknowledging the cyclical failures of socialism and the necessary counter-balancing force of anarchism. The concept of Contentionism is explored in depth in the Economic Devastation thread so I will refer readers there for further explanation. Future currencies are likely to trifurcate into one of the three classes discussed above. Value will likewise shift based on the underlying dynamic balance in the economy. In times of debt free responsible governance, fiat will be preferred and rise in relative value. In times such as ours cryptocurrencies are likely to dominate. Governments will have the ability to destroy any successful hybrid system via forced conversion to electronic fiat. However to do so would force much of the value stored there into anonymous distributed cryptocurrencies (beyond government reach) this fact may or may not restrain government from attempting such actions. |
|
|
|
You do realize that you are asking people to adhere to a narrow set of rules while running a self moderated thread proposing anarchy. Quoting what one is replying to is pretty standard.
Contentionism posits that some top down control is needed to restrain anarchy. It also posits that all such top down control has a tendency to grow without restraint. When top-down control becomes problematic (limits free discourse or prosperity) a counter-force is needed to circumvent the top down control. It is the existence of the counter-force that is important. It provides an outlet or escape hatch which acts as a soft restraint on the top-down controller. The top-down controller knows that if the authority is abused people with circumvent and undermine the control. This is also why a truly anonymous decentralized currency is needed despite the fact that such a currency can be used to circumvent laws and be used for criminal behavior. Its very existence will act as a check on government and may allow for more efficient but less secure non-anonymous cryptocurrency to escape government capture. For the physical economy cryptocurrency can never be truly anonymous. Thus it will never be completely safe from a government gone insane. The ability of individuals to flee from government control acts as a needed sanity check and (hopefully) will keep the top-down controller from acting irrationally.  |
|
|
|
Ha ha that is funny. I never expected to make the first page of Google when I started that thread. From what I can tell from the article those forecasters have correctly identified the proximate cause of the coming Economic Devastation but have not yet seen past that to the more ultimate cause. As far as I am aware the insights of Contentionism are unique. Google has spent considerable effort developing algorithms to sort filter and identify unique content. Perhaps that is why it has made the first page. |
|
|
|
Just to be clear - socialism is built upon the public ownership of the means of production.
This is largely false. Socialism with public ownership of the means of production is a somewhat different philosophy. See the Definition of Communism. At its heart modern Socialism is about public administration and control (via taxation, regulation, and redistribution) of industry. It is neutral in regards to ownership. The Skye Bridge was effectively owned by the Bank of America - when I last looked there was no public ownership of the Bank of America - its a private enterprise. The Bank of America is a bastion of US capitalism.
It just seems a bit disingenuous to be blaming all this on "socialism" - lets call a spade a spade hey ?
You are confusing proximate and ultimate cause The easiest way to find the ultimate cause (as with so many things in life) is to follow the money. Where does the money ultimately come from? Who paid the bill? If the answer is government (via taxes, spending, or debt) the process is Socialism. The winner in your example was Bank of America. Corporate socialism and Welfare socialism are not fundamentally different processes. The only difference is who happened to profit from that round of Socialism's taxation, regulation, redistribution, and debt. we certainly can't blame the state we are in on socialism.
We can you just have not yet realized it. Consider reading the two links in the OP once more. Here is the fundamental critical insight. “We don't realize we are stealing from each other (and ourself) via failure of fitness when we pool and centralize our capital with debt, bonds, insurance, and centralized governance, then we are astonished that the system steals, express consternation, deny culpability, and thus reach for ‘solutions’ which are more of the same poison.”
|
|
|
|
I now understand the way in which you use the term "socialist" Coincube - its a very broad usage of the term. Can I just give you a few examples of how we in Europe might use certain terms ? 1) Public enteprise (socialist) 2) Public Private enterprise (capitalist) 3) Private enterprise (capitalist) I'm not trying to teach you how to suck eggs - there are obviously cultural differences here  - only it seems to me a bit far fetched to blame the problems of Detroit on socialism - but I suppose it depends on how you define the term. Your first link, the building of the Three Gorges Dam, is socialism we agree. Your second link, however, is an example of private capture and use of taxation powers. This is simply socialism dressed up and disguised as capitalism. Definition of Socialism: A political theory advocating the collective administration of the means of production, distribution of goods, and individual behavior. Most people think of socialism as aid for the poor, however, it is really just collective administration. This administrative power includes taxation power. In your example a corporation captured this power and used it on those poor folks living on the island. Eventually the people rebelled. The corporation then shifted its strategy and got the government to buy them out which dispersed the cost to the larger UK taxpayer (again more corporate socialism). With a larger pool to draw from it provoked less resistance and we see the power vacuum in action. From Wikipedia on the Skye Bridge Protests: The campaign included mass protests and a prolonged non-payment campaign, and continued as long as the tolls. A toll-collector interviewed by the BBC in 2005 said that abuse of collectors by motorists had been commonplace. Numerous toll opponents were cited for refusing to pay the toll, with around 500 being arrested and 130 subsequently convicted of non-payment. Among those charged was Clodagh Mackenzie, an elderly lady from whom the land necessary for the bridge's arrival in Skye had been compulsorily purchased.
Scottish Transport Minister Nicol Stephen (eventually) announced that the bridge had been purchased for approximately £27 million, and toll collection immediately ceased.[4] During the preceding decade £33.3 million in tolls had been collected. Figures obtained by the BBC under freedom of information laws showed the consortium's operating costs on the bridge during this period had been only £3.5 million
Sounds like anarchism battling against socialism to me In the United States we are offered the same false dichotomy in our political parties. The Republicans are pseudocapitalist just like the builders of the Skye Bridge and socialism always seems to grow under their leadership. They redirect the benefits towards friendly corporate interest via bailouts and debt. Democrats are more honest in their socialism and it is more appropriately directed to the poor but this comes at the high cost of socialism growing even more wildly and unsustainably then it does under Republicans. At a time when the growth of socialism is causing global systemic instability we are left with the wonderful choice of slower growing misdirected socialism versus fast growing appropriately directed socialism. Read the 100 ways both parties are the sameThe true opposition are the libertarian and Ron Paul supporters in the Republican party and the individual rights supporters (Snowden supporters, IT community, open source movement) in the Democratic party. Not surprisingly both groups are sidelined and marginalized. Detroit is an example of socialism gone wrong. It's attempt to top down force integration (while well intentioned) actually resulted in the the city becoming less diverse while simultaneously decimating the tax base. It then spent its way into bankruptcy via social spending and social benefits. Definition of Anarchism: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be wasteful and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. Anarchism is not inherently superior to socialism. Contentionism argues both are needed. However, as we live in an era of unrestrained socialism anarchist solutions are probably what is needed to restore balance in our time. May you live in interesting times (that is a Chinese curse).
This is a myth. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_timesNone of us are right about all issues all of the time. |
|
|
|
Obviously it wasn't sufficiently profitable for the free market to promote a cheap and readily available alternative, so the companies didn't promote it.
I don't think the example above is the best example of failed socialiasm. The failure to research/exploit a cheep effective generic medication is a common one in medicine. The costs of human controlled trials are very high. There is no financial incentive for free actors to pay for this research research as there is no mechanism for them to recoup their investment. Indeed one could make a strong case that the solution to this problem is actually better or smarter socialism. Right now our patchwork solution is to fund studies of promising generic medications through top down government research grants NIH funding and others. Obviously things are missed/overlooked with any attempt to top down control aspects of the economy. In theory it would be better improve the overlying superstructure of the economy and enable free agents to do this research via an intelligent and restrained modification of patent law. This would allow researchers in this area to profit from their work. The collapse of excessive socialism. http://www.charlestondailymail.com/Opinion/Commentary/201307220166We who love Detroit...were all complicit. Some people would rather be the king of nothing than a part of something. Versus The chaos of excessive anarchy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/pakistan-polio-threaten-global-campaign_n_4808467.html?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=WorldThe latest casualty was a police constable killed protecting a team of vaccination workers... (the) beleaguered battle to eradicate polio is threatening a global, multi-billion-dollar campaign to wipe out the disease worldwide. Because of Pakistan, the virus is spreading to countries that were previously polio-free |
|
|
|
So there must be this contentionism between socialism and anarchism
The line it is drawn The curse it is cast The slow one now Will later be fast As the present now Will later be past The order is Rapidly fadin' And the first one now Will later be last For the times they are a-changin'. -Bob Dylan |
|
|
|
I would prefer to call it contentionism to imply there are two opposing forces in play. It is also a new word.
Contentionism it is. Actually, it sounds like a dusting off of Marxism:
Communism and its antithesis, Capitalism, are unleashed. Then that's followed by socialism, a synthesis of the 2 opposing extremes.
As Mark Twain once said “History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” In the early industrial revolution Capitalism was the thesis and Communism the antithesis. Socialism was the eventual synthesis and what we have been living with for the past few generations. Now we are entering a time when Socialism is starting to fail. We are also (as argued above) on the verge of a major disruptive economic transformation. Today it is Socialism that is the thesis, Anarchism the likely antithesis and perhaps Contentionism the synthesis. I can only say again that to my mind the unregulated free market (wether with or without a central Government sugar daddy) would not represent a utopian idyll - rather, it would resemble a jungle, with all its associated savagery, paranoia and needless suffering.
If the decentralized free market lacked any top down authority then you are correct it would lead to the jungle. Egoist Anarchism and similar variants of Anarchism advocate for the jungle. They are false. Anonymint and I explored this very point in some depth (in a somewhat technical manner) in the link below. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4897280#msg4897280 in a decentralized freedom, the knowledge (thus capital) moves to the producers and away from the stored capital claims on future manual labor. I am positing we couldn't do this on large-scale (i.e. most of the population doing it) before the internet, Satoshi, and the Knowledge Age.
Come gather 'round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You'll be drenched to the bone If your time to you Is worth savin' Then you better start swimmin' Or you'll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan |
|
|
|
Nice straw man.
Your failure to imagine unlikely outcomes usually doesn't make them any less likely. It just makes you bad at identifying risks. And who said anything about AGW being "astronomically unlikely"? That's an implied positive claim on your part, so where's the supporting evidence?
The point is not that AGW has a 0% probability but that the costs of global warming are unknown. Without a rigorous cost/benefit analysis we do not even know if global warming is a bad thing. It is possible that some warming could be good for humanity in the long term. Lots of land in Canada, Russia, Greenland may open up to farming and productive use with some warming. I have not seen a comprehensive cost benefit analysis have you? I definitely have not seen anything remotely justifying the guaranteed bad outcome of taxation/reduced growth/reduced prosperity. The burden of proof falls on those who want to interfere with free markets. Global warming is not an extinction level threat. There is no reason to make rash inefficient decisions based on insufficient data or insufficient analysis. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
