rpietila Altcoin Observer

[Adrian-x]

Seeking early-adopter wealth, founders have deliberately hobbled themselves by not taking advantage of the network effects of the Main Ledger.

This quote looks like something written by a dictator or king talking to his peasants and laughing at them while he sits on a pile of gold bars.  This is another reason Bitcoin always needs a non-zero minimum block reward.

This does not need to be a battle of political will, you will always be free to invest in a new alt ledger or coin. The Spin-off idea is not a political one but one of economic efficiency. It's success is determined by the benefits it gives all users, if you are correct it can't succeeded the market will decided.

Your skepticism is correct on one point in that if it is a $#!±coin holders of the stake will sell but I truly believe that will only happen if there is sub standard innovation.

[utopianfuture]

I don't think it's possible to fully understand the spin-off mechanism while thinking in terms of "coins."

The story is simpler: the world needed a global ledger. One global ledger. Now we have one, but it isn't Bitcoin. Bitcoin is just the (somewhat oddly named) protocol for maintaining that ledger. The very fact that spin-offs are possible (almost*) completely dissolves the idea of "coins" or "Bitcoin vs. altcoins." Bitcoin holders never need to worry about having their wealth disappear, because they aren't really Bitcoin holders; they are people who have a claim to a certain portion of the global ledger - THE global ledger of civilization.

I'll leave aside the arguments on why the ledger currently known as the Bitcoin Blockchain Ledger is the one that is far and away most likely to last and become the world's ledger, as I regard that to be more or less obvious - some common objections notwithstanding - to anyone who understands economics and network effects.

However, in light of the points above, that doesn't mean Bitcoin will be the global ledger. That's just the point: it's not about coins, it's about the ledger. If an unquestionably better system for updating/maintaining that ledger, which would be known in present-day terms as a vastly superior "spin-off altcoin," were to come onto the scene, "Bitcoin" would fall away but the ledger, yes with the legacy of Bitcoin's historical distribution, would not. All "Bitcoin holders" would maintain their wealth by default, automatically. If you "have 2100 Bitcoins," you are not a Bitcoin holder, you are a 0.1% stakeholder in the ledger that is by far the most likely to become the global ledger of planet Earth. Whether that ledger is maintained by the Bitcoin protocol or another protocol makes no difference to your stake and your wealth.*

If we learn to think and speak in this way, the situation becomes much clearer.

Up to now, altcoins have been done the wrong way: as alt-ledgers rather than as competing systems for maintaining THE ledger. Seeking early-adopter wealth, founders have deliberately hobbled themselves by not taking advantage of the network effects of the Main Ledger. Eventually this get-rich-quick, pump-and-dump mentality grew into the fairy tale that "we need the new ledger (maybe even with premine) for funding the devs, because of satoshi's coins, or because Bitcoin is unfair." All these notions stem from economic ignorance, and since economic ignorance is widespread and persistent, these notions will persist until the market makes believing them too painful for most people, at which point the old way of launching alts (alternative ledger maintenance protocols) will be forgotten.


*Technically a spin-off could change the "coin issuance" (i.e., stake dilution) schedule from that block forward, but I doubt it would succeed in the market, unless perhaps if the total end-stake was the same as Bitcoin's. I think the stake dilution schedule of a ledger will come to be thought of as essentially intrinsic to that ledger, part and parcel with it, so the term "ledger" will simply be understood to include the schedule of stake dilution in its meaning. The same applies for things like automatic stake dilution through demurrage. These can most usefully be thought of a characteristics of the ledger itself.

Is this argument all about preserving the status quo? So why even use bitcoin after all if we can take advantage of and improve upon the existing extensive net work and infrastructure of Visa and MasterCard ?
Just come up with this thread so i could write more when I am off mobile.

[r0ach]

Is this argument all about preserving the status quo?

That is what I was referencing when I responded to his comment as well.  He seems to believe that if he's able to grab onto some Bitcoins for $1 at some point in time in the past, that's entitled to be forever rich in the future....

[Peter R]

I don't think it's possible to fully understand the spin-off mechanism while thinking in terms of "coins."

The story is simpler: the world needed a global ledger. One global ledger. Now we have one, but it isn't Bitcoin. Bitcoin is just the (somewhat oddly named) protocol for maintaining that ledger. The very fact that spin-offs are possible (almost*) completely dissolves the idea of "coins" or "Bitcoin vs. altcoins." Bitcoin holders never need to worry about having their wealth disappear, because they aren't really Bitcoin holders; they are people who have a claim to a certain portion of the global ledger - THE global ledger of civilization.

I'll leave aside the arguments on why the ledger currently known as the Bitcoin Blockchain Ledger is the one that is far and away most likely to last and become the world's ledger, as I regard that to be more or less obvious - some common objections notwithstanding - to anyone who understands economics and network effects.

However, in light of the points above, that doesn't mean Bitcoin will be the global ledger. That's just the point: it's not about coins, it's about the ledger. If an unquestionably better system for updating/maintaining that ledger, which would be known in present-day terms as a vastly superior "spin-off altcoin," were to come onto the scene, "Bitcoin" would fall away but the ledger, yes with the legacy of Bitcoin's historical distribution, would not. All "Bitcoin holders" would maintain their wealth by default, automatically. If you "have 2100 Bitcoins," you are not a Bitcoin holder, you are a 0.1% stakeholder in the ledger that is by far the most likely to become the global ledger of planet Earth. Whether that ledger is maintained by the Bitcoin protocol or another protocol makes no difference to your stake and your wealth.*

If we learn to think and speak in this way, the situation becomes much clearer.

Up to now, altcoins have been done the wrong way: as alt-ledgers rather than as competing systems for maintaining THE ledger. Seeking early-adopter wealth, founders have deliberately hobbled themselves by not taking advantage of the network effects of the Main Ledger. Eventually this get-rich-quick, pump-and-dump mentality grew into the fairy tale that "we need the new ledger (maybe even with premine) for funding the devs, because of satoshi's coins, or because Bitcoin is unfair." All these notions stem from economic ignorance, and since economic ignorance is widespread and persistent, these notions will persist until the market makes believing them too painful for most people, at which point the old way of launching alts (alternative ledger maintenance protocols) will be forgotten.


*Technically a spin-off could change the "coin issuance" (i.e., stake dilution) schedule from that block forward, but I doubt it would succeed in the market, unless perhaps if the total end-stake was the same as Bitcoin's. I think the stake dilution schedule of a ledger will come to be thought of as essentially intrinsic to that ledger, part and parcel with it, so the term "ledger" will simply be understood to include the schedule of stake dilution in its meaning. The same applies for things like automatic stake dilution through demurrage. These can most usefully be thought of a characteristics of the ledger itself.

Is this argument all about preserving the status quo?

Did you even read what Zangelbert Bingledack wrote?  His first paragraph that I bolded is excellent (his entire post is excellent too).  Let this sink in: the world needed a global ledger.  So no, this is not about preserving the status quo.  The blockchain ledger is a needed change to the status quo.  

So why even use bitcoin after all if we can take advantage of and improve upon the existing extensive net work and infrastructure of Visa and MasterCard ?

Visa and MasterCard are payment processors with built-in escrow services.  They have nothing to do with a global ledger.  

And, yes, we *should* leverage the traditional payment networks if doing so is efficient.  For example, why not upgrade the software/firmware in traditional point-of-sales (PoS) equipment to accept bitcoin transactions?  The sigsafe is an example of a "tap-and-pay" key tag (under development) that is compatible with the ISO 14443-4 near-field communication protocol used by PoS terminal that support MasterCard® PayPass™ and Visa payWave®  

[dewdeded]

He is the "founder" (whatever) of an NXT-clone. So obvious he cant share this opinion.

[utopianfuture]

He is the "founder" (whatever) of an NXT-clone. So obvious he cant share this opinion.

Could you refrain from stating the obvious and raise a something with a litter more thought? And sorry I am still on mobile so it is difficult to do anything more than a one liner.

[dewdeded]

I think "Peter R" doesnt know you, so I explained your thought to him.

[Shivalein]

Sorry, but that´s all just boastful blabla for "I have Bitcoins and I want you to buy some too, to increase the price...instead of buying altcoins."

[r0ach]

Let this sink in: the world needed a global ledger.  

It's all fun and games when Bitcoin is an optional thing you can partake in if you want, but when you speak with pro-globalization talking points like this, that's when things start to get scary.

I'm of the viewpoint that human structure originates from individual > family > tribe/village > city state, and that's where the buck stops.  Those organizational structures are all based on ethnocentric values, shared culture, and experiences.  If you would take a look at the modern world today, every nation following that natural state seem to be doing okay, while all the ones embracing globalization are just falling apart except the top 1/10th of 1%.

If you were someone looking out for your own self interest, you would most likely not want a "global ledger", and would most likely benefit more from some type of system devised to benefit your local group.  The other horrible thing about globalization is that when humans overpopulate in some random corner of the globe (China, India, wherever), it's now everyone's problem instead of just their local problem.  Whether you like or dislike Bitcoin, you have to admit that increasing monetary velocity between countries and decreasing friction will be a big form of globalization.

[utopianfuture]

I don't think it's possible to fully understand the spin-off mechanism while thinking in terms of "coins."

The story is simpler: the world needed a global ledger. One global ledger. Now we have one, but it isn't Bitcoin. Bitcoin is just the (somewhat oddly named) protocol for maintaining that ledger. The very fact that spin-offs are possible (almost*) completely dissolves the idea of "coins" or "Bitcoin vs. altcoins." Bitcoin holders never need to worry about having their wealth disappear, because they aren't really Bitcoin holders; they are people who have a claim to a certain portion of the global ledger - THE global ledger of civilization.

I'll leave aside the arguments on why the ledger currently known as the Bitcoin Blockchain Ledger is the one that is far and away most likely to last and become the world's ledger, as I regard that to be more or less obvious - some common objections notwithstanding - to anyone who understands economics and network effects.

However, in light of the points above, that doesn't mean Bitcoin will be the global ledger. That's just the point: it's not about coins, it's about the ledger. If an unquestionably better system for updating/maintaining that ledger, which would be known in present-day terms as a vastly superior "spin-off altcoin," were to come onto the scene, "Bitcoin" would fall away but the ledger, yes with the legacy of Bitcoin's historical distribution, would not. All "Bitcoin holders" would maintain their wealth by default, automatically. If you "have 2100 Bitcoins," you are not a Bitcoin holder, you are a 0.1% stakeholder in the ledger that is by far the most likely to become the global ledger of planet Earth. Whether that ledger is maintained by the Bitcoin protocol or another protocol makes no difference to your stake and your wealth.*

If we learn to think and speak in this way, the situation becomes much clearer.

Up to now, altcoins have been done the wrong way: as alt-ledgers rather than as competing systems for maintaining THE ledger. Seeking early-adopter wealth, founders have deliberately hobbled themselves by not taking advantage of the network effects of the Main Ledger. Eventually this get-rich-quick, pump-and-dump mentality grew into the fairy tale that "we need the new ledger (maybe even with premine) for funding the devs, because of satoshi's coins, or because Bitcoin is unfair." All these notions stem from economic ignorance, and since economic ignorance is widespread and persistent, these notions will persist until the market makes believing them too painful for most people, at which point the old way of launching alts (alternative ledger maintenance protocols) will be forgotten.


*Technically a spin-off could change the "coin issuance" (i.e., stake dilution) schedule from that block forward, but I doubt it would succeed in the market, unless perhaps if the total end-stake was the same as Bitcoin's. I think the stake dilution schedule of a ledger will come to be thought of as essentially intrinsic to that ledger, part and parcel with it, so the term "ledger" will simply be understood to include the schedule of stake dilution in its meaning. The same applies for things like automatic stake dilution through demurrage. These can most usefully be thought of a characteristics of the ledger itself.

Is this argument all about preserving the status quo?

Did you even read what Zangelbert Bingledack wrote?  His first paragraph that I bolded is excellent (his entire post is excellent too).  Let this sink in: the world needed a global ledger.  So no, this is not about preserving the status quo.  The blockchain ledger is a needed change to the status quo.  

So why even use bitcoin after all if we can take advantage of and improve upon the existing extensive net work and infrastructure of Visa and MasterCard ?

Visa and MasterCard are payment processors with built-in escrow services.  They have nothing to do with a global ledger.  

And, yes, we *should* leverage the traditional payment networks if doing so is efficient.  For example, why not upgrade the software/firmware in traditional point-of-sales (PoS) equipment to accept bitcoin transactions?  The sigsafe is an example of a "tap-and-pay" key tag (under development) that is compatible with the ISO 14443-4 near-field communication protocol used by PoS terminal that support MasterCard® PayPass™ and Visa payWave®  

"The world needs only one global ledger" is very dubious position from multiple perspectives. First of all, think about a mainstream user perspective, does the world need a global ledger at all ? I can agree that Internet is a global phenomenon but global phenomenon is an EXCEPTION not the rule. People talk multiple languages (no global phenomenon regarding to languages); People eat a variety of foods (no global regarding to eating habit); People play different kind of sports (no dominant form of sport at all); People have different religions, laws, currencies etc. Fragmentation and Diversity is the rule not Uniformity.

Let's me repeat it again to you "global phenomenon is an extremely rare EXCEPTION not the rule"; Only some Bitcoin fanatics can  be sure 100% that a ledger will become a global phenomenon (and that is Bitcoin) that can reach anything to the proximity of Internet. It is more likely that humanity would have multiple forms of different ledgers resembling to multiple gaming franchises. That would be similar to sports or fiat currency or language fragmentation.  

Now let's assume in the (unlikely) hypothetical position that there will be only ONE global ledger that is as ubiquitous as Internet today. Imagine what kind of scale that global ledger would be ? 1-2 billion users ?, ton ton and ton of trillion peta bytes of data in ONE ledger ? Does that sound like decentralization to you ? Decentralization has to be diversity, resiliency and redundancy and I guess people will migrate from THE global ledger in mass before it reaches anything close to the described scale,

Now let's assume it is just too convenient for people to not accept that extreme form of centralization and stay with the ONE global ledger in the future. We can compare Bitcoin scale today with the hypothetical global ledger of the future described above and we could safely conclude that Bitcoin is about less than 0.1 percent on the way. So isn't it way to early to pick the winner when the race is less than 0.1 percent finished ? The reality is that Bitcoin has very litter mainstream market presence so far and open itself easily to a worthy challenger (don't limit the imagination to all type of Bitcoin clones; for example maidsafe could be one challenger if they can fulfill their promises. It is not exactly a global ledger but it comes back to my previous point. Why do a mainstream user needs a global ledger at all if they can do everything bitcoin does with an alternative like maidsafe ). I shouldn't speculate on this scenario anyway because I firmly believe in true decentralization and diversity to waste time on the prospect of "one ledger rules all" type of situation.

In summary, spin-off blockchain is a fun idea to experiment so I totally support that but no chance a Doge spin-off is going to kill of Doge blockchain (which of course could die for a different reason)          

[utopianfuture]

I think "Peter R" doesnt know you, so I explained your thought to him.

Hm I think you explained what I am doing outside this thread but not at all about what I thought on the issue
You got it wrong also because we are not cloning anything. All codes are written from scratch.

[dewdeded]

What ever you are doing and if you like it or not. Most people call your project a clone.

[utopianfuture]

What ever you are doing and if you like it or not. Most people call your project a clone.

So you are the type who like to listen to rumor instead of facts ? no wonder.

[dewdeded]

So what is the correct term what you are doing?

Creating/Developing a new cryptocurrency plattform inspired by NXT?

[Adrian-x]

What ever you are doing and if you like it or not. Most people call your project a clone.

So you are the type who like to listen to rumor instead of facts ? no wonder.

is said project PoS?
is said project premined?

if yes, then its a clone on the macro economic level?
how is it distinguished in a single line?  

[utopianfuture]

So what is the correct term what you are doing?

Creating/Developing a new cryptocurrency plattform inspired by NXT?

I think you can stop because this is not a place. You can read more about us in our dedicated thread. Open source technologies are a state of shared mindset to advance humanity progress. In a way we are all inspired by Satoshi. We spent a lot of time on improving what are available.  

[turtoro]

I don't think it's possible to fully understand the spin-off mechanism while thinking in terms of "coins."

The story is simpler: the world needed a global ledger. One global ledger. Now we have one, but it isn't Bitcoin. Bitcoin is just the (somewhat oddly named) protocol for maintaining that ledger. The very fact that spin-offs are possible (almost*) completely dissolves the idea of "coins" or "Bitcoin vs. altcoins." Bitcoin holders never need to worry about having their wealth disappear, because they aren't really Bitcoin holders; they are people who have a claim to a certain portion of the global ledger - THE global ledger of civilization.

I'll leave aside the arguments on why the ledger currently known as the Bitcoin Blockchain Ledger is the one that is far and away most likely to last and become the world's ledger, as I regard that to be more or less obvious - some common objections notwithstanding - to anyone who understands economics and network effects.

However, in light of the points above, that doesn't mean Bitcoin will be the global ledger. That's just the point: it's not about coins, it's about the ledger. If an unquestionably better system for updating/maintaining that ledger, which would be known in present-day terms as a vastly superior "spin-off altcoin," were to come onto the scene, "Bitcoin" would fall away but the ledger, yes with the legacy of Bitcoin's historical distribution, would not. All "Bitcoin holders" would maintain their wealth by default, automatically. If you "have 2100 Bitcoins," you are not a Bitcoin holder, you are a 0.1% stakeholder in the ledger that is by far the most likely to become the global ledger of planet Earth. Whether that ledger is maintained by the Bitcoin protocol or another protocol makes no difference to your stake and your wealth.*

If we learn to think and speak in this way, the situation becomes much clearer.

Up to now, altcoins have been done the wrong way: as alt-ledgers rather than as competing systems for maintaining THE ledger. Seeking early-adopter wealth, founders have deliberately hobbled themselves by not taking advantage of the network effects of the Main Ledger. Eventually this get-rich-quick, pump-and-dump mentality grew into the fairy tale that "we need the new ledger (maybe even with premine) for funding the devs, because of satoshi's coins, or because Bitcoin is unfair." All these notions stem from economic ignorance, and since economic ignorance is widespread and persistent, these notions will persist until the market makes believing them too painful for most people, at which point the old way of launching alts (alternative ledger maintenance protocols) will be forgotten.


*Technically a spin-off could change the "coin issuance" (i.e., stake dilution) schedule from that block forward, but I doubt it would succeed in the market, unless perhaps if the total end-stake was the same as Bitcoin's. I think the stake dilution schedule of a ledger will come to be thought of as essentially intrinsic to that ledger, part and parcel with it, so the term "ledger" will simply be understood to include the schedule of stake dilution in its meaning. The same applies for things like automatic stake dilution through demurrage. These can most usefully be thought of a characteristics of the ledger itself.

Is this argument all about preserving the status quo?

Did you even read what Zangelbert Bingledack wrote?  His first paragraph that I bolded is excellent (his entire post is excellent too).  Let this sink in: the world needed a global ledger.  So no, this is not about preserving the status quo.  The blockchain ledger is a needed change to the status quo.  

So why even use bitcoin after all if we can take advantage of and improve upon the existing extensive net work and infrastructure of Visa and MasterCard ?

Visa and MasterCard are payment processors with built-in escrow services.  They have nothing to do with a global ledger.  

And, yes, we *should* leverage the traditional payment networks if doing so is efficient.  For example, why not upgrade the software/firmware in traditional point-of-sales (PoS) equipment to accept bitcoin transactions?  The sigsafe is an example of a "tap-and-pay" key tag (under development) that is compatible with the ISO 14443-4 near-field communication protocol used by PoS terminal that support MasterCard® PayPass™ and Visa payWave®  

"The world needs only one global ledger" is very dubious position from multiple perspectives. First of all, think about a mainstream user perspective, does the world need a global ledger at all ? I can agree that Internet is a global phenomenon but global phenomenon is an EXCEPTION not the rule. People talk multiple languages (no global phenomenon regarding to languages); People eat a variety of foods (no global regarding to eating habit); People play different kind of sports (no dominant form of sport at all); People have different religions, laws, currencies etc. Fragmentation and Diversity is the rule not Uniformity.

Let's me repeat it again to you "global phenomenon is an extremely rare EXCEPTION not the rule"; Only some Bitcoin fanatics can  be sure 100% that a ledger will become a global phenomenon (and that is Bitcoin) that can reach anything to the proximity of Internet. It is more likely that humanity would have multiple forms of different ledgers resembling to multiple gaming franchises. That would be similar to sports or fiat currency or language fragmentation.  

Now let's assume in the (unlikely) hypothetical position that there will be only ONE global ledger that is as ubiquitous as Internet today. Imagine what kind of scale that global ledger would be ? 1-2 billion users ?, ton ton and ton of trillion peta bytes of data in ONE ledger ? Does that sound like decentralization to you ? Decentralization has to be diversity, resiliency and redundancy and I guess people will migrate from THE global ledger in mass before it reaches anything close to the described scale,

Now let's assume it is just too convenient for people to not accept that extreme form of centralization and stay with the ONE global ledger in the future. We can compare Bitcoin scale today with the hypothetical global ledger of the future described above and we could safely conclude that Bitcoin is about less than 0.1 percent on the way. So isn't it way to early to pick the winner when the race is less than 0.1 percent finished ? The reality is that Bitcoin has very litter mainstream market presence so far and open itself easily to a worthy challenge. I shouldn't speculate on this scenario anyway because I firmly believe in true decentralization and diversity to waste time on the prospect of "one ledger rules all" type of situation.

In summary, spin-off blockchain is a fun idea to experiment so I totally support that but no chance a Doge spin-off is going to kill of Doge blockchain (which of course could die for a different reason)          

I only want to address the inconsistency in bold;

English has evolved as the de facto global language.

Although the foods individuals eat is indeed dependent on local agriculture in the developing world, the trend indicates that as remote areas become absorbed into the global trade network, the more the uniformity of diet occurs with others in distant places.

The dominant (popular) sports in the world all follow the same basic underlying structure. Also Football  (Soccer) can be easily claimed as a global sport.

90% of the followers of a religion follow one derived from their Abrahamic beginnings. The differences in those are minute.

British common law has evolved into the gold standard of jurisprudence world wide.

The usd has been "the" global currency since the Marshall Plan.

In general, the world has been gradually moving towards a common set of standards, and the trend is unlikely to change barring a major catastrophe.

[Peter R]

You got it wrong also because we are not cloning anything. All codes are written from scratch.

Spin-offs allow you to embrace the cloning process.

Would you consider a NEM/Nxt spin-off?  Since these PoS coins are not mineable, you would not have the advantage of low-difficulty to easily accumulate coins upon launch, but perhaps you could accomplish the same effect by forging.  For example, if you were one of the first to claim your pre-mine, you'd be forging when most bitcoiners had your project "on ignore."  The code could be written to award forgers with transactions fees when claims are made (since there's no mining to offset the cost of supporting the network).  If lots of bitcoiners make their claims, you as one of the earliest forgers would earn more fees.  If few bitcoiners make their claim (assuming you implemented a 1-year claim window), then your money supply is reduced.  So again, this seems like a way to bootstrap an alt-coin with an efficient distribution and still provide a mechanism for developers to earn a profit should their idea prove to be innovative.  

[Cryddit]

Civilization is a good thing, mostly.

It's when you get more of it than you're ready for that it causes problems.  

Cultures have inertia, and people need time to adapt.  Someone who grows up in a state of low civilization - say, a small village or a clan structure, using personal reputation, barter or simple 'cash' tokens - does not find it very easy to adapt to a much higher state of civilization - say, a nation state using an infrastructure for banking with payment cards and identity documents and all the rest of that.

This 'lag' isn't even just one generation long; it can take family structures, traditions, and values several generations to adapt to new realities and start producing people who are comfortable with and can effectively utilize the larger structure and all it entails.  

Right now the people pushing globalization, are the ones who'd succeed if it happened.  They understand that once everybody is adapted to it and able to take advantage of it, it'll be better for everybody - but they don't have the cultural memory of their six-times-great grandparents to understand what it would do to everyone else for the next five generations until they all 'catch up.'

And part of that is, people don't WANT to 'catch up' in ways that involve changing what they regard as fundamental bedrock values of right and wrong.  You tell a Polynesian shopkeeper that it isn't okay that when his cousin's getting married and the family just shows up and empties the shop of its inventory to furnish the wedding tables. He'll understand you to be telling him to be a dishonorable person who doesn't support his family.  The cultural Chinese, who've been doing commercial business for many centuries longer, are outcompeting the polynesians in that part of the world because their culture has had time to adapt to the realities of commerce, and they are honorable people who support their families ... by paying for the shop inventory they take when they're getting married, or else staging a smaller wedding.  

This is also the driving force behind militant Islam.  These people have very strong ideas of what is right and wrong, and they have very correctly identified western commercial culture as giving those with "wrong" ideals and motives an advantage.  In economic terms, this means that continued exposure to commercial culture will destroy their old fashioned ideas of right and wrong - where real decisions are made by religious authority and with the permission of the religious community, for example rather than in a permissionless way by whoever has the money to buy the resources to implement those decisions.  And they cannot abide that destruction because to them it is the destruction of their values and their way of life.

I literally cannot fault their logic; they are absolutely right that our entire capitalist way of life WILL choke the life out of religous authority in the long run.  Heck, it already has.  I live in a place where separation of church and state was written into law two hundred fifty years ago, and I like it that way and I think they should too.  Obviously, they vehemently disagree.

Anyway, the whole 'globalism' debate is all about whether we can find ways to be honorable decent people - a system of values that works with globalism and allows us to take advantage of the institutions it will evolve, and tells us what is honorable and decent under that system.  If our culture is still sufficiently tied to other ideas of decency and honor, such that we cannot yet find ways to be good people and also participate, then globalism will be bad for us.

So it comes down to how much and how fast.  How fast can our culture adapt, and how much should we push those who haven't adapted yet?  These become moral questions because adaptation itself changes our ideas of right and wrong.  We, like the Chinese shopkeepers in the area, would see the relatives of that Polynesian shopkeeper as thieves whose actions are morally indefensible.  We see the religious authorities who prevent some types of commerce as obstructionists who are depriving the people of good honest business.  But the moral questions aren't the same from the other side of the line.

[Peter R]

Excellent post, Cryddit.  

When I read it, I imagined different cultures as local minima (wells) on a big three-dimensional function.  The higher states of civilization have deeper wells, and when they interact with the more isolated cultures, something (I'm not exactly sure what that something is) starts to flow into the deeper well, and this process frightens some of the people watching from the "blue well" in this image below:




Although frightening, I think the process is unstoppable.  We keep falling to a new lower minima.