How To Use Bitcoin – The Most Important Creation In The History Of Man

[Belz...]

If most politicians don't care for a particular ethnic group they can remove their rights.

No, they can't. Not without passing inconstitutional laws.

At the moment we have the tyranny of career politicians.

Assuming you're talking about the US or Canada, we have tyranny of money interests.

The tyranny of the very few, which is given some kind of shroud of legitimacy by the fact that 'everyone' is able to vote for these representatives every few years. And they they lie to you to get into power and don't do what they say they are going to do. As for the ill-suitedness of laymen to make decisions regarding laws and governance, that seems to be an elitist prejudice that is not borne out by any evidence. The only country that has a significant incorporation of direct democracy into lawmaking processes is Switzerland and their system seems to compare very favorably with the representative democracies elsewhere.

It seems to me like you're arguing from ideology rathan than fact.

As for your second point, there are plenty of instances of central bank money significantly changing its value relative to other currencies within hours. I lived in The UK during the ERM debacle.

Who said it never happened ? Certainly not me. I implied it was much more stable.

 

[psionl0]

It decentralises monetary authority. No more deliberate inflation and debasement of the currency. In essence, power to the people.

Which is why the banks and governments will collude against bitcoin.

Bitcoin itself is not suitable as a currency because it has no growth (who will spend something that appreciates in value faster than any other investment?) and all the new bitcoins go to those who have the most powerful computers.

I suspect that if the technology continues to prove to be tamper resistant, a bit-currency will evolve that overcomes these limitations. In order to make banks redundant for money transfers, bit currency would need two features:
- perpetual growth (say 2% - 3% per year)
- some form of lottery to replace the mining algorithm.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

No, they can't. Not without passing inconstitutional laws.

The same for a direct democracy.

Assuming you're talking about the US or Canada, we have tyranny of money interests.

Yes, enabled by cronyism. There is a revolving door between the political class, lobbyists and money interests. The money interests don't get to vote directly on laws, but they do have a huge influence on the process.

It seems to me like you're arguing from ideology rather than fact.

It is a fact that politicians have made plenty of promises that they don't keep. It is a fact that Switzerland employs a form of direct democracy. It is not a fact that layman are ill-suited to voting on laws, which was your unsupported assertion.

Who said it never happened ? Certainly not me. I implied it was much more stable.

That remains to be seen. If you don't like bitcoin, no-one is forcing you to use them, which is another nice feature.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Which is why the banks and governments will collude against bitcoin.

Bitcoin itself is not suitable as a currency because it has no growth (who will spend something that appreciates in value faster than any other investment?) and all the new bitcoins go to those who have the most powerful computers.

I suspect that if the technology continues to prove to be tamper resistant, a bit-currency will evolve that overcomes these limitations. In order to make banks redundant for money transfers, bit currency would need two features:
- perpetual growth (say 2% - 3% per year)
- some form of lottery to replace the mining algorithm.

As I understand it, bitcoin does have growth which is limited by an algorithm? I'm not an expert though, so would have to do some research. I certainly don't think that bitcoin is necessarily the answer, but it is an interesting development and yes, if it takes off, monetary authoritarians are going to be troubled.

 

[psionl0]

As I understand it, bitcoin does have growth which is limited by an algorithm? I'm not an expert though, so would have to do some research.

The details are in this thread but considering how long it is, you might do quicker to google it.

Basically, the generation rate halves every 4 years. It was 50 BTC every 10 minutes but now it is 25 BTC every 10 minutes. Within a few decades, the growth rate will become negligible.
The maximum number of BTC that will ever be made is 21M and half of them have already been made.

 

[Belz...]

It is a fact that politicians have made plenty of promises that they don't keep.

It's a fact that democracy is a system that encourages such acts. It's another thing to say that politicians are a bunch of liars and therefore we should vote for our stuff directly, the fact that we don't understand the issues be damned.

It is not a fact that layman are ill-suited to voting on laws

Of course it is. Do you really think that the average joe understands the legal or constitutional implications of a new law ?

That remains to be seen. If you don't like bitcoin, no-one is forcing you to use them, which is another nice feature.

Well if somehow it replaces money, I'll be forced to use it, won't I ?

 

[psionl0]

Well if somehow it replaces money, I'll be forced to use it, won't I ?

I seriously doubt that you believe this.

 

[Belz...]

I seriously doubt that you believe this.

You seriously doubt that, if bitcoin were to replace money, I'd have no choice but to use it ?

 

[psionl0]

You seriously doubt that, if bitcoin were to replace money, I'd have no choice but to use it ?

I seriously doubt that you believe that there is any prospect of bitcoin totally replacing other forms of money.

 

[TjW]

It doesn't really matter what he believes.
He uses money now, presumably.
By the definition of "replace", he would, instead, have to use BitCoin instead of money.

 

[Belz...]

I seriously doubt that you believe that there is any prospect of bitcoin totally replacing other forms of money.

Who cares ? That wasn't what I said.

 

[Mister Earl]

It one point I showed an interest into this sort of thing... but I was doubting I'd cover wear-and-tear on the computer, plus power costs.

That and I'd heard that people have lost bitcoins due to unsecure nodes?

 

[psionl0]

Who cares ? That wasn't what I said.

It was one of your irrelevant objections to the "power to the people" aspect of bitcoin. Apparently it is so much better if money is controlled by bankers and politicians.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

It's a fact that democracy is a system that encourages such acts. It's another thing to say that politicians are a bunch of liars and therefore we should vote for our stuff directly, the fact that we don't understand the issues be damned.

Politicians lie. Quite frequently. Do you want me to provide some evidence? Of course there are honest politicians as well, yet there are probably too many who would sacrifice the truth for power.

Of course it is. Do you really think that the average joe understands the legal or constitutional implications of a new law ?

Well, this may be an attitude shared by politicians. What I will say is that people are incentivized to find out about decisions that effect them, especially if they are entitled to have a say in those decisions. There will always be experts who can inform as to legal or constitutional implications of proposed laws. Anyway,we are on a big sidetrack here and the merits or otherwise of direct democracy is a big topic worth it's own thread.

If I can sum up my thoughts re: bitcoin, I can see some merit in a currency that is not controlled by a central authority that has its own interests which may not always be the people's interests. Can you not see some merit in that being available? Can I just clarify your position? You sound like you wouldn't use bitcoin. Are you happy for bitcoin to grow and for other people to use it, if they find it useful? Or do you think that it should be stamped out?

Well if somehow it replaces money, I'll be forced to use it, won't I ?

Well it can't replace money, because it is money. At the point that there is a totalitarian decree outlawing other currencies than bitcoin, I'd be on your side defending your right to use an alternative currency. Alternatively, if bitcoin is so successful that other currencies disappear because they simply can't compete, then I think you might be happy to use it. If you were still not happy , I'd still defend your right to use another currency, or start one up. I hope that covers most of the hypotheticals.

 

[Belz...]

It was one of your irrelevant objections to the "power to the people" aspect of bitcoin.

No it wasn't. It was an answer to someone's comment that I wasn't forced to use it. That was seven posts ago, Psi.

 

[Belz...]

Politicians lie. Quite frequently. Do you want me to provide some evidence?

Seriously, is anyone actually reading what I write ? I said "It's a fact that democracy is a system that encourages such acts." I admitted that they lie. But since most people lie, does that mean we can never trust anyone on anything ? Politicians don't lie every time they say something, you know. I was objecting to your implication that they pretty much always lie.

What I will say is that people are incentivized to find out about decisions that effect them, especially if they are entitled to have a say in those decisions

Really ? What about evolution ? Abortion ? Nuclear power ? Global warming ? No, I don't think people find out about decisions that affect them even when they can have a say in it. Humans are usually quite ok with feeling their way through life rather than thinking it.

Anyway,we are on a big sidetrack here and the merits or otherwise of direct democracy is a big topic worth it's own thread.

Alright.

Can you not see some merit in that being available?

Yes, I can. But, first, BTC seems like a half-assed attempt. Second, I think there are some things better handled by private interests (most things) and some things best handled by public ones, and that money isn't necessarily better in private hands.

Are you happy for bitcoin to grow and for other people to use it, if they find it useful? Or do you think that it should be stamped out?

To me, it's like Stones of Jordan in Diablo II. People want to trade it, that's like any other commodity. But it seems immensely unstable and unsafe, so I won't be using it unless I have no other choice.

 

[psionl0]

No it wasn't. It was an answer to someone's comment that I wasn't forced to use it. That was seven posts ago, Psi.

There were five posts after that one (not including your most recent response) which discuss what you mean by that post.

You seem to deny meaning anything by that post. It would be no different to saying, "if water is dry then it won't wet you".

 

[Belz...]

There were five posts after that one (not including your most recent response) which discuss what you mean by that post.

I'm really trying to understand why you think that's relevant. I was answering a point and you probably misunderstood. I don't think BTC is going to replace money. Ever. I was simply pointing out that, if it did, I wouldn't have a choice using it, contra what Democracy said.

 

[Puppycow]

Jittery Spaniards Seek Safety in Bitcoins

Nothing says "safety" to me like something as volatile as bitcoins.

 

[psionl0]

Jittery Spaniards Seek Safety in Bitcoins

Nothing says "safety" to me like something as volatile as bitcoins.

Like the the article says,

That Spaniards would consider converting a portion of their dwindling savings into a peer-to-peer currency vulnerable to wild price fluctuations and the odd thieving Trojan speaks volumes about banking confidence in some parts of Europe.