philosophy behind Bitcoin

[Yunus]

Hi guys,

I am also new to Bitcointalk - but not new to thinking about (and trading) Bitcoin. I am philosopher by training and I have to say I am very intrigued by digital currencies and their potential to revolutionize the way we think about money, the way we spend money and the way we transfer money. Maybe money need not be backed by real value (commodities, etc.) or someone's institutional promise to protect its status as a legal tender. Maybe (sound) mathematics and certain agreements on secure trading are sufficient!

Also, I am not necessarily a libertartian, although I have libertarian tendencies.

[1715103153]

1715103153

[1715103153]

1715103153

[1715103153]

1715103153

[1715103153]

1715103153

[duravello]

Maybe (sound) mathematics and certain agreements on secure trading are sufficient!

This keep coins safe against counterfeit, but you still need trust the coin can be used somewhere to retain value the same way as fiat institutional promise

[obfuscatory]

So glad you posted this here!

I think to do a full philosophical exposition of cryptocurrency philosophy we need a list of attributes and features that they have, by coin. An understanding of the semantic/pragmatic distinction is also helpful here (what something means theoretically / what it means practically ). I've written up some starter points below (please feedback and add, I am so open to discussion )

Decentralized: (semantic) There is no single controller of the currencies volume or value. The risk of corruption by financial agencies / central authorities (by corruption I am happy to systemic corruption i.e. policy that enables tax avoidance on behalf of the global financial cartel) is dependant on the integrity of the central controllers and related agencies (corruption is enabled by design) thus without an inherent central controller, there are fewer powers by which elite groups can 'monopoly' the market.  (p) Whilst there is no inherent central controller, the computational control of mining and access to the exchanges (local proximity to an exchange increase the speed at which an order is received by the exchange) enables some power elites to control variables like volume and price (enabled by collusion with other rich/powerful traders, I'm thinking pump&dump here).

Finite: (semantic) There is a limit to the currency that cannot be extended. This prevents planned inflation and malevolent volume control. [insert something about 'inflationary /deflationary' but I am unsure, if someone could give a clear statement about this I will edit it in] (pragmatic) Despite the finitude, the divisibility of each unit somewhat counteracts the [inflationary/deflationary] problems of finite currency supply.

Transparent: (semantic) The public ledger enables all transactions to be scrutinised and examined. Despite the anonymity of the ledger entry, pay outs to fiat currency accounts can be be used to identify persons. (pragmatic) The sale of illegal goods/services will be pushed out of cryptocurrencies (and the image of cryptocurrencies in the public hivemind) as it begins to be regulated by the financio-government cartel.


Regulation: JPMorgan plan to trade in BTC in 2014, so you can bet there will be documents that allow the trade of crypto-currencies for legal corporate entities in the states at least. Sweden have said they will treat it as an asset and as such it will be subject to capital gains tax (as have Canada have too I think) for business traders, but the Acts and Laws have yet to be written in most nations.

Let's get talking cryptofriends 8-)

[Bobbydiggital]

Really JPmorgan plans to trade BTC in 2014? i didnt kow that, thats good news i would think.

[TrailingComet]

Decentralisation and personal responsibility over centralisation and hierarchy

[obfuscatory]

personal responsibility

is a tough one. What do you mean? Is it opposed to hierarchy? Could you have a hierarchical system that has personally responsible agents?

[obfuscatory]

Really JPmorgan plans to trade BTC in 2014? i didnt kow that, thats good news i would think.

I got my facts wrong, they tried to patent a crypto but failed http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-15/jpmorgans-bitcoin-alternative-patent-rejected-175-times

It's only a matter of time though, as soon as the trading of cryptocurrencies regulated by governments more Big Finance will start to move in.

[Bobbydiggital]

Really JPmorgan plans to trade BTC in 2014? i didnt kow that, thats good news i would think.

I got my facts wrong, they tried to patent a crypto but failed http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-15/jpmorgans-bitcoin-alternative-patent-rejected-175-times

It's only a matter of time though, as soon as the trading of cryptocurrencies regulated by governments more Big Finance will start to move in.

Yeah if JPmorgan gets in the game the BTC would make a suck jump.

[Whoisthelorax]

You have to realize, however, that when JPMorgan and Co enter the game, it could be more problematic than good. I will also be happy for the billions in investment money they bring to the game, but they are sharp when it comes to trading for money. At that point, I hope a few coins will be stable enough that they will be separated from the investment coins and those stable coins will be used for day to day things.

[obfuscatory]

You have to realize, however, that when JPMorgan and Co enter the game, it could be more problematic than good. I will also be happy for the billions in investment money they bring to the game, but they are sharp when it comes to trading for money. At that point, I hope a few coins will be stable enough that they will be separated from the investment coins and those stable coins will be used for day to day things.

I am not too enthused about Big Finance moving in either, but I agree that their main focus will be profit, not preserving the crypto culture.

[cityglut]

You have to realize, however, that when JPMorgan and Co enter the game, it could be more problematic than good. I will also be happy for the billions in investment money they bring to the game, but they are sharp when it comes to trading for money. At that point, I hope a few coins will be stable enough that they will be separated from the investment coins and those stable coins will be used for day to day things.

I doubt that any coin (BTC included) will be stable enough not to be considered an investment coin when big banks start investing. JP Morgan's Total Equity in 2012 was more than $200,000,000,000; Bitcoin is currently worth around $10,000,000,000. If JP Morgan Chase publicly announces it is investing in Bitcoin, other banks will quickly follow. Among the big banks, there is simply too much equity; big banks will easily be able to determine the price for some time, the question is only whether they will want to.  If big banks want cryptocurrencies to succeed, they will invest responsibly; if they want them to fail, they can also kill them (it would also be very hard to prove that any particular investor was responsible for a pump and dump, since they can generate multiple public addresses). Only after big money has been invested in cryptocurrencies for a while will Bitcoin achieve stability.

Remember, JP Morgan Chase just got sued for an amount comparable to the entire BTC economy; that big bank money is way beyond cryptocurrencies' line of vision.

[Skoupi]

What libertarianism has to do with bitcoins anyway  

[BlockChainLottery]

Finite: (semantic) There is a limit to the currency that cannot be extended. This prevents planned inflation and malevolent volume control. [insert something about 'inflationary /deflationary' but I am unsure, if someone could give a clear statement about this I will edit it in] (pragmatic) Despite the finitude, the divisibility of each unit somewhat counteracts the [inflationary/deflationary] problems of finite currency supply.

What problems?

[hilariousandco]

Hi guys,

I am also new to Bitcointalk - but not new to thinking about (and trading) Bitcoin. I am philosopher by training and I have to say I am very intrigued by digital currencies and their potential to revolutionize the way we think about money, the way we spend money and the way we transfer money. Maybe money need not be backed by real value (commodities, etc.) or someone's institutional promise to protect its status as a legal tender. Maybe (sound) mathematics and certain agreements on secure trading are sufficient!

Yes, I believe it does have the potential to revolutionise money, but it's going to be a rocky road until we can get mainstream society to get behind this. Hopefully we'll see it in our lifetime.

Also, how does one train to be a philosopher? 

[Whoisthelorax]

You have to realize, however, that when JPMorgan and Co enter the game, it could be more problematic than good. I will also be happy for the billions in investment money they bring to the game, but they are sharp when it comes to trading for money. At that point, I hope a few coins will be stable enough that they will be separated from the investment coins and those stable coins will be used for day to day things.

I doubt that any coin (BTC included) will be stable enough not to be considered an investment coin when big banks start investing. JP Morgan's Total Equity in 2012 was more than $200,000,000,000; Bitcoin is currently worth around $10,000,000,000. If JP Morgan Chase publicly announces it is investing in Bitcoin, other banks will quickly follow. Among the big banks, there is simply too much equity; big banks will easily be able to determine the price for some time, the question is only whether they will want to.  If big banks want cryptocurrencies to succeed, they will invest responsibly; if they want them to fail, they can also kill them (it would also be very hard to prove that any particular investor was responsible for a pump and dump, since they can generate multiple public addresses). Only after big money has been invested in cryptocurrencies for a while will Bitcoin achieve stability.

Remember, JP Morgan Chase just got sued for an amount comparable to the entire BTC economy; that big bank money is way beyond cryptocurrencies' line of vision.

in Bitcoin's case, I agree. I am concerned about Bitcoin's future as big investment houses come to play.

however, I am not that concerned with alt coins in general. A developer will notice the machinations of Big Whales as they come to play and design a coin that can withstand the investment plan. Notice that currently there are two VERY DIFFERENT philosophies driving the cryptocurrency surge; wanting to use a decentralized medium of exchange for goods and services and speculation to increase one's amount of legal tender. The former can by coincidence enjoy the benefits of extra US dollars/centralized currency as their crypto's rise in value, but they would rather use the currency even if it doesn't make them extra on the side. Speculators are here pure and simple for the 1000% gains that are being seen over time. They will sell it all in a heart beat and never buy a single ham sandwich if they don't want to.

The more any coin has users for the sake of using (and maybe very modest appreciation) and not for speculation, the better imho. Speculators will go where they can squeeze the most money. Let us birth a medium exchange that is design to repel those from even coming!

[poelling92]

JP Morgan's Total Equity in 2012 was more than $200,000,000,000; Bitcoin is currently worth around $10,000,000,000.

Remember, JP Morgan Chase just got sued for an amount comparable to the entire BTC economy; that big bank money is way beyond cryptocurrencies' line of vision.

I believe they may buy coins for few million dollars only and just trading for profit, so they take money from noob traders. But the more whales, the more interesting competetion between them

[hamdi]

philosophy? cut out all the corrupt middlemen and controllers.

[medveworld]

philosophy = mine everything and everywhere 

[fractastical]

Philosophy has two major forms: metaphysics and politics. The former is no longer distinct from physics or mathematics. It is a description of the way things are. The second branch, politics, is a consideration of the "ought." Ethics essentially falls into this, as do all discussions of political order. They are all discussions of how humans can and should live together.

Bitcoin does not clearly make any statement in the former category. There are no cryptographic or mathematical innovations. Rather, all of the innovation of Bitcoin exists is applying existing technologies in a novel way.

One hypothesis, commonly held by participants in the Bitcoin community, is that governments are not necessary at all. There is a long anarchist tradition which has asserted this at various points in history, sometimes violently advocating the destruction of governmental systems, sometimes building up utopian and communitarian communities that presented their ideal of how society could cohere without coercive structures. Most of these eventually dissipate and die of their own accord, although there are also plenty of examples of governments crushing up those that took up arms.

Fundamentally, Bitcoin exists as an anarchist experiment along the same lines of these past movements. It expresses a particular ideal, the ideal of free individual action without a centralized and controlling authority. This is understandably exciting to many people, as it also has been at many past points in history. Whether or not Satoshi himself is committed to this ideal is less than clear, but it is clear that he has considered the important questions of this domain.

Can humans provide a public good (i.e. a currency) without any governance? Can governance evolve around a protocol? Can technology be leveraged and replace government all together? Should as much human effort as possible be replaced with algorithms? These are interesting philosophical questions. Bitcoin has, however, offered us a practical and not a philosophical answer.

That's the right way forward. As Plato reputedly noted in his own letters, political systems implemented from the top down tend to get borked quickly. People who rise to the top are usually concerned about threats to their power, not designing better solutions. But there are interesting exceptions.

Satoshi himself exhibits this, leaving a fair bit of Bitcoins for himself. I suppose in time we will be able to see what he uses them for.

[Dr Bloggood]

You have to realize, however, that when JPMorgan and Co enter the game, it could be more problematic than good. I will also be happy for the billions in investment money they bring to the game, but they are sharp when it comes to trading for money. At that point, I hope a few coins will be stable enough that they will be separated from the investment coins and those stable coins will be used for day to day things.

I doubt that any coin (BTC included) will be stable enough not to be considered an investment coin when big banks start investing. JP Morgan's Total Equity in 2012 was more than $200,000,000,000; Bitcoin is currently worth around $10,000,000,000. If JP Morgan Chase publicly announces it is investing in Bitcoin, other banks will quickly follow. Among the big banks, there is simply too much equity; big banks will easily be able to determine the price for some time, the question is only whether they will want to.  If big banks want cryptocurrencies to succeed, they will invest responsibly; if they want them to fail, they can also kill them (it would also be very hard to prove that any particular investor was responsible for a pump and dump, since they can generate multiple public addresses). Only after big money has been invested in cryptocurrencies for a while will Bitcoin achieve stability.

Remember, JP Morgan Chase just got sued for an amount comparable to the entire BTC economy; that big bank money is way beyond cryptocurrencies' line of vision.

They can't do to BTC what they have done to gold. And even with gold, I believe this is coming to an end.

No naked shorts in BTC...