Reference Link:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-want-bitcoin-to-die-in-a.htmlAbove-the-fold Excerpt:
Bitcoin just crashed 50% today, on news that the Chinese government has banned local exchanges from accepting deposits in Yuan. BtC was trading over $1000 yesterday; now it's down to $500 and still falling.
Good.
I want Bitcoin to die in a fire: this is a start, but it's not sufficient. Let me give you a round-up below the cut.
--------
My response to his rant:
How utterly depressing.
Your leading title -
"Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire" is so completely at odds with what I thought you were about, that I'm having a bit of cognitive dissonance parsing it.
It would be as if Isaac Asimov said "Robots - seriously, screw those buckets of junk, I just wrote about it for the checks."
You open with admitting the current financial system is crap, but apparently not crappy enough to replace, as Bitcoin isn't "IT".
In light of the massive fraud that we've seen globally, from the 2008 mortgage securitization fraud, LIBOR rigging scandal, HSBC Drug Money laundering and the continued Eurozone implosion courtesy of the Eurodollar and everyone hooking together the worst parts of their respective economies into a debt-chain of nightmare proportions, it seems that preserving the current system is one of the last things we should be considering.
And yet, when faced with the potential of complete freedom, the solution apparently is for Bitcoin to "die in a fire". Lightning has struck outside of our financial cave, and we're not rushing to the smouldering tree to nurture this spark, we're instead fleeing back into the damp cold depths, somehow reassuring ourselves that once you can feel the cave walls, you don't need light at all.
I find this particular view shockingly regressive. You, an author that I admire and have many times re-read your stories on taking technologies to the limit - "Accelerando" in particular comes to mind - and yet the very words out of your mouth regarding Bitcoin are riddled with fear and hostility.
Perhaps it was always part of your internal agenda, when I read this from "Accelerando":
"The last great transglobal trade empire, run from the arcologies of Hong Kong, has collapsed along with capitalism, rendered obsolete by a bunch of superior deterministic resource allocation algorithms collectively known as Economics 2.0."
I initially took this to mean that you recognized progress comes at a cost, but ultimately it is what enables us collectively to advance and improve our situation. Now, in light of your post about Bitcoin, I see this as fear of such an advance telegraphed four years before Bitcoin even existed.
As others will no doubt shine bright lights into the dark crevices of misunderstandings you have about Bitcoin, I'm just simply here to express my utter disbelief that someone as visionary as yourself can't see the benefits of a system that allows financial freedom.
You touch upon the fearful subjects of "Carbon Footprint" (Ignoring advances in lowered power consumption of the same.), "Bitcoin Malware" (Every ecosystem has predators and prey, surely), "Violates Gresham's Law" (Apparently we can steal electricity rather than pay? Funny how the utilities still operate then.) "Bitcoin's Lack of Regulation" (Like they've done such a stellar job with the regular system - please.)
And then, finally - "Bitcoin is designed for tax evasion" argument. Oh my. I suppose everyone is a crook and nobody would want to support their communities? Is this really the kind of thought process I'm supposed to believe you have? As for the "Gini Coefficient" you linked to, you do realize that distribution was on a singular exchange that ran with the money not long after, right? I'd say those funds have already been redistributed.
There's more, but honestly it all sounds like you're throwing your weight behind is the legacy financial system, warts and all, and somehow its better than having the ability to spend your money on what you want, or being able to shift your wealth around the globe without artificial barriers or constraints.
Perhaps I should ask about your stance on ebooks and Digital Rights Management, because it seems they're rather similar. Granted, "Accelerando" was released using a Creative Commons license, but what about the rest? Are you in favor of restrictive policies regarding data? Is every "regulation" in your view fair and just?
Am I to conclude that all of those flights of fancy that you've eloquently penned over the years really spring from the restricted and fearful psyche of someone who prefers flawed "protection" instead of actual freedom?
Please say it isn't so.
I'm not here to change your mind, because it seems you're quite firmly set on the issue, I'm just here to express my complete and utter shock that a visionary would rather hide in the back of his cave, feeling the walls for comfort, in the utter darkness.
As a dreamer and an advocate of progress myself, i commend you on the great rebuttal!
