4 ms·

Well, right. One may frame this whole "failed versus not failed" as a power struggle between two camps: a. Those who own a large stake in the original BitCoin

Well, right. One may frame this whole "failed versus not failed" as a power struggle between two camps: a. Those who own a large stake in the original BitCoin - such as the developers, miners, venture capitalists, the Winklevoss Twins, etc. and b. Those who don't own a large stake in BitCoin currently, but wish to own a large stake in the dominant cryptocurrency. Wall Street... When you attack BitCoin on any grounds, technological or otherwise, you are attacking those stakeholders.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Nah. People need to learn that you simply can't build a decentralized, egalitarian system on capitalist foundations.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  Has anyone built a decentralized, egalitarian system on any foundation? Call be cynical but at some point you run into human nature, and we're not fundamentally decentralising or egalitarian.
  - hvfhhvv 11y ago
    Non sense. It is not necessary for the agents in a decentralised system to be selfless in order for the system to self organise. Edit. Drunk and offensive. But my point still stands.
snowwrestler 11y ago
Another way to look at it is, what was the goal of the Bitcoin experiment? a. To create a new network for digital financial transactions? This seems to be what Fred Wilson is writing about, and I agree with him that the jury is still out. b. To create a distributed currency free from government bureaucracy? Bitcoin seems well-separated from the U.S. federal government, but lately it also seems like Bitcoin has organically sprouted its own messy government bureaucracy.
- npongratz 11y ago
  > Bitcoin seems well-separated from the U.S. federal government, but lately it also seems like Bitcoin has organically sprouted its own messy government bureaucracy. Bitcoin, nor its tokenholders, cheerleaders, etc. do not have the violence-backed power to tax. So while it may have the nasty trappings of a bureaucracy, I don't think it sinks to the level of a government bureaucracy.
  - krapp 11y ago
    That's damning with faint praise, if the best thing you can say about the Bitcoin community is that at least it hasn't monopolized its capacity for violence.
milkey_mouse 11y ago
This is super nitpicky but it's "Bitcoin" when referring to the currency (e.g. "the Bitcoin blockchain") and "bitcoin" when referring to an amount ("0.2 bitcoin"); it's never "BitCoin".
- ErikAugust 11y ago
  I see, thank you.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Nah. People need to learn that you simply can't build a decentralized, egalitarian system on capitalist foundations.

cmdkeen 11y ago
Has anyone built a decentralized, egalitarian system on any foundation? Call be cynical but at some point you run into human nature, and we're not fundamentally decentralising or egalitarian.
- hvfhhvv 11y ago
  Non sense. It is not necessary for the agents in a decentralised system to be selfless in order for the system to self organise. Edit. Drunk and offensive. But my point still stands.

snowwrestler 11y ago

Another way to look at it is, what was the goal of the Bitcoin experiment? a. To create a new network for digital financial transactions? This seems to be what Fred Wilson is writing about, and I agree with him that the jury is still out. b. To create a distributed currency free from government bureaucracy? Bitcoin seems well-separated from the U.S. federal government, but lately it also seems like Bitcoin has organically sprouted its own messy government bureaucracy.

npongratz 11y ago
> Bitcoin seems well-separated from the U.S. federal government, but lately it also seems like Bitcoin has organically sprouted its own messy government bureaucracy. Bitcoin, nor its tokenholders, cheerleaders, etc. do not have the violence-backed power to tax. So while it may have the nasty trappings of a bureaucracy, I don't think it sinks to the level of a government bureaucracy.
- krapp 11y ago
  That's damning with faint praise, if the best thing you can say about the Bitcoin community is that at least it hasn't monopolized its capacity for violence.

milkey_mouse 11y ago

This is super nitpicky but it's "Bitcoin" when referring to the currency (e.g. "the Bitcoin blockchain") and "bitcoin" when referring to an amount ("0.2 bitcoin"); it's never "BitCoin".

ErikAugust 11y ago
I see, thank you.