• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

psionl0 said:
Not only are you reading the mind of somebody you don't even know exists but you are also attributing psychic powers to that person.
Click to expand...

I don't have to read mind to have opinions about somebody else's motive. But yeah, the author of BTC indeed needed psychic powers. Psychic powers of programming.
 
The_Animus said:
I'm curious how many people participating in this thread have actually bought/mined bitcoin or used it to purchase something.
Click to expand...
I did try panning for gold once (in 1970), but apart from that haven't mined anything. Nor have I ever bought 'crypto', stocks, or bonds. However I have used a few million dollars worth of fiat currency to purchase things.

You may have heard of it - very easy and fast transactions, stable price, secure, efficient, trustworthy and accepted pretty much everywhere. Also comes in a physical form for those times when you just want to make a quick payment without fiddling with electronic devices.
 
psionl0 said:
Not only are you reading the mind of somebody you don't even know exists but you are also attributing psychic powers to that person.
Click to expand...
We don't even know if he is a person. One thing is pretty certain though, he isn't who he pretends to be. So we know he is a fraud.

But was Bitcoin originally intended to be a scam? We may never know, but I suspect not. Bitcoin 'fixes' all the things libertarian anarchists said was wrong with fiat. This suggests that the designer was himself a libertarian anarchist - and so did not understand what he was creating. He was so focused on trying to get free of 'evil' government fiat that he didn't consider how evil an anti-government currency could be.
 
Dr.Sid said:
I don't have to read mind to have opinions about somebody else's motive. But yeah, the author of BTC indeed needed psychic powers. Psychic powers of programming.
Click to expand...

[Note: I don't own bitcoin (or fraction thereof), have never owned bitcoin (or fraction thereof), and will probably never own bitcoin (or fraction thereof)]

Have you read the paper where Satoshi Nakamoto presented the theory of the blockchain and introduced bitcoin? The author seemed quite sincere and earnest in their intent to solve the 'double-spending problem' via blockchain and for people to actually use bitcoin as currency to buy pizza or whatever. I can't imagine how he could have predicted that speculation on bitcoin would lead to the bitcoin purchase price of a pizza in the past being equivalent to millions of dollars later.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
I don't have to read mind to have opinions about somebody else's motive. But yeah, the author of BTC indeed needed psychic powers. Psychic powers of programming.
Click to expand...
A computer geek would have put the code out there (and mined lots of the bitcoin while the mining was cheap) even if bitcoin never amounted to anything more than an intellectual curiosity.
 
Scopedog said:
[Note: I don't own bitcoin (or fraction thereof), have never owned bitcoin (or fraction thereof), and will probably never own bitcoin (or fraction thereof)]

Have you read the paper where Satoshi Nakamoto presented the theory of the blockchain and introduced bitcoin? The author seemed quite sincere and earnest in their intent to solve the 'double-spending problem' via blockchain and for people to actually use bitcoin as currency to buy pizza or whatever. I can't imagine how he could have predicted that speculation on bitcoin would lead to the bitcoin purchase price of a pizza in the past being equivalent to millions of dollars later.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he predicted it would make him 44th most rich person on the planet. I'm saying that this might have been just idea how to make SOME money. Even when BTC was one dollar, the project paid for itself nicely.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Even when BTC was one dollar, the project paid for itself nicely.
Click to expand...
It would be years before bitcoin would be worth a cent - let alone a dollar.

Dr.Sid said:
That's exactly what BTC was for years. Intellectual curiosity.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Sure, the inventor may have thought that it would be nice if bitcoin became worth money (and was maybe entranced with the idea of a currency that was beyond manipulation) but you can be sure that it wasn't his primary motivation.

For a true geek, being able to come up with an answer to the Byzantine Generals problem would be a reward unto itself.
 
I see bitcoin as a very simple video game implementation from a sophisticated, innovative engine (called blockchain). It's so simple that the first party user doesn't even play it- their computer plays it and collects tokens as it wins. An interested third party user can exchange something (usually fiat currency but sometimes a good or service) for a password granting exclusive access to a token or fraction of a token. Bitcoin is both stupid and visionary. Why would anyone want these tokens earned by the computer player? Why do people want hats or whatever in online games? Bitcoin evolved into a tulip bulb investment simulator. I'm sure this analogy can be improved.
 
Scopedog said:
I see bitcoin as a very simple video game implementation from a sophisticated, innovative engine (called blockchain). It's so simple that the first party user doesn't even play it- their computer plays it and collects tokens as it wins. An interested third party user can exchange something (usually fiat currency but sometimes a good or service) for a password granting exclusive access to a token or fraction of a token. Bitcoin is both stupid and visionary. Why would anyone want these tokens earned by the computer player? Why do people want hats or whatever in online games? Bitcoin evolved into a tulip bulb investment simulator. I'm sure this analogy can be improved.
Click to expand...
There is no improving that analogy. It sounds like just so much shroomery.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I did try panning for gold once (in 1970), but apart from that haven't mined anything. Nor have I ever bought 'crypto', stocks, or bonds. However I have used a few million dollars worth of fiat currency to purchase things.

You may have heard of it - very easy and fast transactions, stable price, secure, efficient, trustworthy and accepted pretty much everywhere. Also comes in a physical form for those times when you just want to make a quick payment without fiddling with electronic devices.
Click to expand...

I have heard of fiat currencies. There are a lot of different ones. Some used far more than others. Over time they have been prone to many of the things you highlighted earlier such as offshore accounts, tax evasion, gambling, consumer loans, and speculation. I've heard there has been instances of fiat money becoming worthless practically overnight. I've also heard that these currencies and the exchanges between them have been manipulated in the past for personal profit at the expense of everyone else.

Mind you, I'm not against fiat currency, nor am I a bitcoin cheerleader. In fact from what I've seen maybe just one person in this thread could be reasonably considered a bitcoin cheerleader. I just find the constant predictions of its death and some of the arguments made against it to be a bit over the top.
 
The_Animus said:
I just find the constant predictions of its death and some of the arguments made against it to be a bit over the top.
Click to expand...
Bitcoin as originally envisaged is pretty much dead. It has become just another 'asset class', buoyed up by speculators looking to make money from nothing. Nobody talks about it being used as a cash replacement anymore, because it has failed in that role. As a means of getting free from the evil government it is a double-edged sword - unstable, rife with fraud and criminal behavior, and no protection for victims (libertarians probably think that's fine, but Bitcoin won't achieve the wider adoption they yearn for without fixing these flaws).

I have heard of fiat currencies. There are a lot of different ones. Some used far more than others. Over time they have been prone to many of the things you highlighted earlier such as offshore accounts, tax evasion, gambling, consumer loans, and speculation. I've heard there has been instances of fiat money becoming worthless practically overnight. I've also heard that these currencies and the exchanges between them have been manipulated in the past for personal profit at the expense of everyone else.
Click to expand...
All true, but with one big difference - oversight. Most governments have laws against abuse of their currencies, and constantly crack down on criminal activities. Fiat money becoming worthless overnight is rare, generally being the result of a failed state (which has more than just monetary problems).

Bitcoin is only backed by the 'invisible hand' which never seems to be around when you need it. Bitcoin does nothing about stopping criminal activity - it actually enables it. Bitcoin has always been far more volatile than any major currency, making it a frustrating medium of exchange (but great for speculation).

Scopedog said:
I see bitcoin as a very simple video game implementation from a sophisticated, innovative engine (called blockchain)... Bitcoin is both stupid and visionary. Why would anyone want these tokens earned by the computer player? Why do people want hats or whatever in online games? Bitcoin evolved into a tulip bulb investment simulator. I'm sure this analogy can be improved.
Click to expand...
I think your 'analogy' is actually pretty close to reality. If it had just remained a currency simulator played by geeks for fun then it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately it was let out into the real world, where nefarious uses were found for it.

We should remember that Bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency) is not blockchain. Most of the flaws in Bitcoin would remain even it had a different carrier. Some of its flaws are the result of not considering evil intentions, others are due to not understanding how economics works. Blockchain is not responsible for any of that.

Have you read the paper where Satoshi Nakamoto presented the theory of the blockchain and introduced bitcoin? The author seemed quite sincere and earnest in their intent to solve the 'double-spending problem' via blockchain and for people to actually use bitcoin as currency to buy pizza or whatever. I can't imagine how he could have predicted that speculation on bitcoin would lead to the bitcoin purchase price of a pizza in the past being equivalent to millions of dollars later.
Click to expand...
I think you are probably right - not because the result isn't blindingly obvious, but because it fits the typical libertarian anarchist's mindset. They always spout on about how governments are evil and fiat currency is doomed, but they never suggest an alternative that is properly thought out. Most seem to understand little about the realities of economics, and naively think that people will act responsibly when given the freedom to do whatever they want.

If 'Satoshi Nakamoto' really wanted Bitcoin to be the solution he talked about, you would think he would have made at least some effort to predict how it would behave. Bitcoin is highly deflationary by nature, which any economist can tell you is a bad thing. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would happen to the price if it was widely adopted, nor to calculate the amount of electricity required. My bet is he was so enamored by his own cleverness that he didn't even bother to do the sums.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
Bitcoin as originally envisaged is pretty much dead. It has become just another 'asset class', buoyed up by speculators looking to make money from nothing. Nobody talks about it being used as a cash replacement anymore, because it has failed in that role. As a means of getting free from the evil government it is a double-edged sword - unstable, rife with fraud and criminal behavior, and no protection for victims (libertarians probably think that's fine, but Bitcoin won't achieve the wider adoption they yearn for without fixing these flaws).

All true, but with one big difference - oversight. Most governments have laws against abuse of their currencies, and constantly crack down on criminal activities. Fiat money becoming worthless overnight is rare, generally being the result of a failed state (which has more than just monetary problems).

Bitcoin is only backed by the 'invisible hand' which never seems to be around when you need it. Bitcoin does nothing about stopping criminal activity - it actually enables it. Bitcoin has always been far more volatile than any major currency, making it a frustrating medium of exchange (but great for speculation).

I think your 'analogy' is actually pretty close to reality. If it had just remained a currency simulator played by geeks for fun then it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately it was let out into the real world, where nefarious uses were found for it.

We should remember that Bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency) is not blockchain. Most of the flaws in Bitcoin would remain even it had a different carrier. Some of its flaws are the result of not considering evil intentions, others are due to not understanding how economics works. Blockchain is not responsible for any of that.

I think you are probably right - not because the result isn't blindingly obvious, but because it fits the typical libertarian anarchist's mindset. They always spout on about how governments are evil and fiat currency is doomed, but they never suggest an alternative that is properly thought out. Most seem to understand little about the realities of economics, and naively think that people will act responsibly when given the freedom to do whatever they want.

If 'Satoshi Nakamoto' really wanted Bitcoin to be the solution he talked about, you would think he would have made at least some effort to predict how it would behave. Bitcoin is highly deflationary by nature, which any economist can tell you is a bad thing. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would happen to the price if it was widely adopted, nor to calculate the amount of electricity required. My bet is he was so enamored by his own cleverness that he didn't even bother to do the sums.
Click to expand...

Humans, especially creative ones, don't always think through all variables or contexts and Satoshi Nakamoto was under no regulatory, moral, ethical, legal, or peer review concerns and restrictions when coding the blockchain and bitcoin program. I think Nakamoto, intentionally or unintentionally, invented a paradigm (cryptocurrency) that can now be subjected to discussions and pressures regarding regulation, morality, ethics, legality, and peer review. I think the risks from bitcoin's anarchic inception (distinct from it's almost immediate anarchic use) is primarily a risk for cryptocurrency users and traders who have very little precedent or consensus to base decisions and predictions on (distinct from the risk to people who are targets of criminal acts paid for in cryptocurrency). I think bitcoin and cryptocurrency is still it's own distinct paradigm and hasn't succeeded in expanding or influencing the fiat or 'traditional' currency paradigm. This is why I say it's evolved into a tulip bulb investment simulator.
 
Last edited:
Scopedog said:
This is why I say it's evolved into a tulip bulb investment simulator.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter why you say that. It is still a false analogy for reasons that have been given many times before - not the least being that predictions that the price of bitcoin is about to permanently collapse (this time for sure) have never materialized.
 
psionl0 said:
It doesn't matter why you say that. It is still a false analogy for reasons that have been given many times before - not the least being that predictions that the price of bitcoin is about to permanently collapse (this time for sure) have never materialized.
Click to expand...

I'm not predicting it's collapse or any future development.
 
psionl0 said:
It doesn't matter why you say that. It is still a false analogy for reasons that have been given many times before - not the least being that predictions that the price of bitcoin is about to permanently collapse (this time for sure) have never materialized.
Click to expand...

Collapse is irrelevant. BTC has failed to reach its objectives.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
We don't even know if he is a person. One thing is pretty certain though, he isn't who he pretends to be. So we know he is a fraud.

But was Bitcoin originally intended to be a scam? We may never know, but I suspect not. Bitcoin 'fixes' all the things libertarian anarchists said was wrong with fiat. This suggests that the designer was himself a libertarian anarchist - and so did not understand what he was creating. He was so focused on trying to get free of 'evil' government fiat that he didn't consider how evil an anti-government currency could be.
Click to expand...

I always got more of an occupy wall street, don't trust the banks because they print their own money vibe.

There is something to be said for the notion that there is fundamentally no differences between left wing anarchism and right wing libertarianism so it can be hard to tell the difference in a case like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom