Why is the Occupy movement not immediately embracing bitcoin?

[BitterTea]

Ha ha, maybe next you can pull out the log graphs and push the delusion even further.  Bitcoins are down 86% since their peak less than a year ago.  Are you disputing that fact?

Those were both log graphs.

Yes, Bitcoin is down 86% from it's June peak. It's also up 400% from its one year low. Do you dispute that?

Also, nominal yearly inflation in the low single digits like we've seen with the USD is pretty rad.  It's pretty much ideal, actually.  Wage stagnation isn't cool, though, which is the real problem at the moment.

Ah, silly me... nice troll.

[FAtlas]

Ha ha, maybe next you can pull out the log graphs and push the delusion even further.  Bitcoins are down 86% since their peak less than a year ago.  Are you disputing that fact?

Those were both log graphs.

Yes, Bitcoin is down 86% from it's June peak. It's also up 400% from its one year low. Do you dispute that?

Also, nominal yearly inflation in the low single digits like we've seen with the USD is pretty rad.  It's pretty much ideal, actually.  Wage stagnation isn't cool, though, which is the real problem at the moment.

Ah, silly me... nice troll.

Log graphs are pretty misleading, which was my point.  Not trolling at all, though I am laughing at your grasp of Economics.

Sure, 2-3% is probably the ideal inflation level, and we're usually a little higher than that, but around 4% and lower like we've been seeing is pretty damn good.  A low steady rate of inflation encourages investment and lending and is overall good for the economy.

[BitterTea]

Log graphs are pretty misleading, which was my point.  Not trolling at all, though I am laughing at your grasp of Economics.

They're not misleading when you're talking about exponential growth. Constant growth is exponential growth.

I recommend that you watch The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.

Sure, 2-3% is probably the ideal inflation level, and we're usually a little higher than that, but around 4% and lower like we've been seeing is pretty damn good.  A low steady rate of investment encourages investment and lending and is overall good for the economy.

Why is 2-3% ideal? 3% inflation per year means that every 23 years the supply of money doubles. Is that beneficial?

Why should investment be encouraged? I don't think people should have to play stock broker in order to save money. That sort of system benefits those who can afford to lose money at the expense of those who cannot.

[tvbcof]

It would be a challenge to ensure that everyone runs the right software and nobody passes around secret keys and such.

They can pass them around all they want, but legitimate businesses will not take payment from them or they will face penalty.

Then out come the occuplyBlah and eventually the pitchforks again.  Rinse and repeat until the people running things decide they are just going to have to live without control of the currency.

Control is with the people, in this scenario.  They will be free to change the policy through the Democratic process if they desire instead of leaving it in the control of an unelected central bank.

There wouldn't be much reason to change it though because only those who wanted to break the law would have anything to fear from having their transactions be trackable by the government. 

If the majority of users have a tenable way to destroy the currency at will and re-distribute it as they collectively choose, I have some confidence that the structures and players who develop a control over the currency will use their power in such a way that will not be too abusive.  I suspect that in such a situation I would personally be tolerant of some level of oversight and management.  I've got no real problem with that.

[Rarity]

If the majority of users have a tenable way to destroy the currency at will and re-distribute it as they collectively choose, I have some confidence that the structures and players who develop a control over the currency will use their power in such a way that will not be too abusive.

Uh huh... History tells me different.

History didn't have Bitcoin.  Previous attempts at redistribution were flawed in lacking this technical marvel protected from Government interference.

[tvbcof]

If the majority of users have a tenable way to destroy the currency at will and re-distribute it as they collectively choose, I have some confidence that the structures and players who develop a control over the currency will use their power in such a way that will not be too abusive. 

Uh huh... History tells me different.

I guess I missed class the day they taught us about how the Romans bowed to the power of state and programmed their iphones in accordance with the laws of the senate.

[makomk]

Just tell them there is a workable alternative system that does not need any bank to print money and transfer money. Now they can abolish the bank and there is no need to feed banker anymore.

It just needs mining instead - and the #1 thing you need to get lots of mining power that you fully control is money. Have you taken a good look at the level of technical expertise that goes into something like HFT or investment risk calculations? If Bitcoin were ever to take off, the banks would be more than capable of getting a ton of enery-efficient mining grunt and skimming their take off the top.

[BitterTea]

Just tell them there is a workable alternative system that does not need any bank to print money and transfer money. Now they can abolish the bank and there is no need to feed banker anymore.

It just needs mining instead - and the #1 thing you need to get lots of mining power that you fully control is money. Have you taken a good look at the level of technical expertise that goes into something like HFT or investment risk calculations? If Bitcoin were ever to take off, the banks would be more than capable of getting a ton of enery-efficient mining grunt and skimming their take off the top.

They wouldn't be skimming their take. They would be earning every satoshi by securing the network, just like everyone else.

[Rarity]

If you really want to redistribute wealth, and help poor people, this is what you should do: Come up with some novel idea that helps people and is marketable. Develope that idea into a business, work hard, make lots of money. Then take that money which you earned, and you can spend it however you wish, such as giving a dollar to everybody you meet, or dropping it out of an airplane, or sending it to Kenya, or whatever.

I already do employ people, but the free market is ruined by bad actors like central banks who have perverted the system to give too much wealth to the unproductive rich.  Once Bitcoin has solved that problem there may have to be a period of forced redistribution if the wealthy continue to game the system, otherwise the egalitarian society should rise on its own.

[phillipsjk]

It would be a challenge to ensure that everyone runs the right software and nobody passes around secret keys and such.

They can pass them around all they want, but legitimate businesses will not take payment from them or they will face penalty.

I don't see this happening. The cases of stolen BTC show that there is no viable way of quarantining "evil" addresses. Is the thief passing the coins back and forth? Are third parties involved? An Analysis of Anonymity in the Bitcoin System

Even if the black/grey market can be tracked effectively, what happens when somebody sends money from a "tainted" account to a "legitimate" account without permission? Will the business be required to immediately return the coins to the sending address? What happens if that money is sent to an off-line wallet? Would you be able to use legitimate businesses for laundering money by forcing them to give you "clean" money? If client changes are used to prevent the initial send, I smell blockchain fork.

[BitterTea]

Once Bitcoin has solved that problem there may have to be a period of forced redistribution if the wealthy continue to game the system, otherwise the egalitarian society should rise on its own.

Can you please define "egalitarian"? Do you accept that some people will accumulate more wealth through their actions than others? How do you define the maximum "allowable" disparity in wealth before violent action is permissible? I assume by "forced redistribution", you mean that the rules of private property no longer apply, that those targeted lose their right to defend their property and can have violence used upon them to take said property, up to and including that which is lethal?

Anyway... get rid of the state, and I see no system left to game. Keep it, and it will always turn against you.

[phillipsjk]

I think part of the point is that Bitcoins are scarce and that the elite would not be able to create money out of thin air to the detriment of the working class.

[Rarity]

It would be a challenge to ensure that everyone runs the right software and nobody passes around secret keys and such.

They can pass them around all they want, but legitimate businesses will not take payment from them or they will face penalty.

I don't see this happening. The cases of stolen BTC show that there is no viable way of quarantining "evil" addresses. Is the thief passing the coins back and forth? Are third parties involved? An Analysis of Anonymity in the Bitcoin System

You don't blacklist, you whitelist.

[tvbcof]

I think part of the point is that Bitcoins are scarce and that the elite would not be able to create money out of thin air to the detriment of the working class.

I see no reason why the 'elite' (or generally wealthy) could not obtain a lionshare of the Bitcoin just as they can a lionshare of the precious metals, property, bandwidth, or just about anything else.  In fact, I suspect it would be easier with Bitcoin, at least during the high inflation period.

[Rarity]

I think part of the point is that Bitcoins are scarce and that the elite would not be able to create money out of thin air to the detriment of the working class.

I see no reason why the 'elite' (or generally wealthy) could not obtain a lionshare of the Bitcoin just as they can a lionshare of the precious metals, property, bandwidth, or just about anything else.  In fact, I suspect it would be easier with Bitcoin, at least during the high inflation period.

Yes, but they cannot print their own money to artificially retain their position.  If they collect too much Bitcoin it can be confiscated and redistributed more easily because we have a total log of how much they have from the transaction history.

[BitterTea]

I think part of the point is that Bitcoins are scarce and that the elite would not be able to create money out of thin air to the detriment of the working class.

I see no reason why the 'elite' (or generally wealthy) could not obtain a lionshare of the Bitcoin just as they can a lionshare of the precious metals, property, bandwidth, or just about anything else.  In fact, I suspect it would be easier with Bitcoin, at least during the high inflation period.

There's nothing stopping them from buying bitcoin, and I'm sure some will. However, I think it's far too risky for them to acquire a significant amount of them. You have to remember, the ones to worry about are entrenched in the current system. Buying into Bitcoin means buying into an alternative to the current system.

[BitterTea]

If they collect too much Bitcoin it can be confiscated and redistributed more easily because we have a total log of how much they have from the transaction history.

What if it's me, and my wallet is encrypted? Are you going to torture me until I give up the passphrase? Murder my family in front of me?

When you speak of "confiscation", you are nothing but a common thug or a tax man.

Also, I feel that you really don't understand Bitcoin. The "log" is pseudonymous, how do you propose to determine which addresses belong to which individuals in the first place?

[phillipsjk]

You don't blacklist, you whitelist.

I think people generally don't like being told they need to prove the provenance of cash transactions over $10,000.

Most people will keep two sets of books. If they need to launder small ammounts of cash, they can simply send it to one of their "whitelisted" addresses. Large transactions would obvioulsy get the attention of authorities.

[Rarity]

Also, I feel that you really don't understand Bitcoin. The "log" is pseudonymous, how do you propose to determine which addresses belong to which individuals in the first place?

There's nothing stopping them from buying bitcoin, and I'm sure some will. However, I think it's far too risky for them to acquire a significant amount of them. You have to remember, the ones to worry about are entrenched in the current system. Buying into Bitcoin means buying into an alternative to the current system.

Bitcoin will be the only currency considered valid, they won't have to choose to buy in or not. 

I think people generally don't like being told they need to prove the provenance of cash transactions over $10,000.

Most people will keep two sets of books. If they need to launder small ammounts of cash, they can simply send it to one of their "whitelisted" addresses. Large transactions would obvioulsy get the attention of authorities.

If it doesn't come from a whitelisted source it will be considered illegal and be confiscated.

[BitterTea]

Bitcoin will be the only currency considered valid, they won't have to choose to buy in or not.

This will happen when you are appointed dictator of the world? lol

If it doesn't come from a whitelisted source it will be considered illegal and be confiscated.

Good luck funding your police state without control over the money supply!