3 ms·

> Back in 2009 when I was getting into bitcoin, it was widely described as a "stateless currency" and not just an alternative to Visa or credit cards. Having a

by atmosx 11y ago

> Back in 2009 when I was getting into bitcoin, it was widely described as a "stateless currency" and not just an alternative to Visa or credit cards. Having a background in economics, bitcoin looked to me like a truly revolutionary technology and if it was adopted en masse would change politics forever. No state or political entity will EVER support en masse a currency that it does not control and/or is NOT backed by another state with larger economy! In Sept 16 1992 the BoE withdraw the Pound from the ERM as a precaution after the most fierce attack the BGP ever received. The cost was ~ 3-5 Billion pounds. The GBP came out wounded, but it came out in one piece because the government had a say. Millions of people in the UK lost money indirectly, but the government was able to minimize the losses. Now imagine if the UK that day had the bitcoin, what would you have them do, block ISP traffic? How would you explain what happened to the population?! Using BTC as a state currency is not just anti-democratic, it is pure insanity.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
Well this is the point. If private citizens adopted BTC over their nation's currency it would completely upend the political power structures - which arguably is the most democratic thing possible. No nation state would ever encourage it, but in theory it would flatten the world to the greatest extent ever - moreso than any transportation technology (shipping, airfreight etc...) ever.
- atmosx 11y ago
  You might be confusing democracy with anarchy: in democracy everybody has a say in anarchy no one does, bitcoin is a lot like the later and none at all like the former.
- Frondo 11y ago
  It wouldn't. If anything, it would vastly concentrate power further in the hands of a few--except this time, those few would be the miners and core developers. Say "the people" wanted to vote to increase the pool to 25 million coins, instead of 21. That is a pretty basic form of political power to exercise, saying "we want to change this structure that affects our lives, let's vote on it". How would "the people" hold that vote? The answers I've gotten in the past, when I ask this question, have been one of: * Just patch the software, and if 51% of the miners accept it, that's it! Or... * Currency shouldn't be under democratic control. Neither of those statements is anything like democracy. And those attitudes seem to be pretty prevalent in the bitcoin world. It's for that that I could never, ever endorse Bitcoin in any way. My interest is in pushing for a greater distribution of power--less concentration in the hands of a few--and doing so that actually engages with everyone, whoever they are, open source dev or not.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    We don't disagree. If power moved from governments to a handful of developers "it would completely upend the political power structures." It is democratic is because people are voluntarily adopting BTC where alternatives exist - which is unprecedented in the history of money. They vote by acting.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Voting, in this context of political engagement, isn't just any ol' act of expressing a preference. "Vote with your dollars" is not voting, though you often hear people say this sort of thing, and I think this is why people now confuse voting with making decisions in general. You choose the green shirt, you don't "vote for green," when you dress yourself in the morning. Voting is the act of expressing a preference in a framework of governance that lets people engage with the governing structures and policies, and these days we also take it to mean that each person gets a vote so long as they're a citizen--they don't need to be rich or even literate. That isn't built into Bitcoin anywhere. It's antidemocratic because there is no way for every single user to express a preference in its design or operation. That doesn't seem to bother the bitcoin advocates I've talked with, either. The sense I get, and I realize this is not so charitable, is that they look at it as a way to be the guys in power in this new system, and aren't so keen to bake in some sort of voting because it'd just take that away again.
mahouse 11y ago
>what would you have them do, block ISP traffic? Forbid businesses from accepting BTC. It's that simple.

by atmosx 11y ago

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

Well this is the point. If private citizens adopted BTC over their nation's currency it would completely upend the political power structures - which arguably is the most democratic thing possible. No nation state would ever encourage it, but in theory it would flatten the world to the greatest extent ever - moreso than any transportation technology (shipping, airfreight etc...) ever.

atmosx 11y ago
You might be confusing democracy with anarchy: in democracy everybody has a say in anarchy no one does, bitcoin is a lot like the later and none at all like the former.
Frondo 11y ago
It wouldn't. If anything, it would vastly concentrate power further in the hands of a few--except this time, those few would be the miners and core developers. Say "the people" wanted to vote to increase the pool to 25 million coins, instead of 21. That is a pretty basic form of political power to exercise, saying "we want to change this structure that affects our lives, let's vote on it". How would "the people" hold that vote? The answers I've gotten in the past, when I ask this question, have been one of: * Just patch the software, and if 51% of the miners accept it, that's it! Or... * Currency shouldn't be under democratic control. Neither of those statements is anything like democracy. And those attitudes seem to be pretty prevalent in the bitcoin world. It's for that that I could never, ever endorse Bitcoin in any way. My interest is in pushing for a greater distribution of power--less concentration in the hands of a few--and doing so that actually engages with everyone, whoever they are, open source dev or not.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  We don't disagree. If power moved from governments to a handful of developers "it would completely upend the political power structures." It is democratic is because people are voluntarily adopting BTC where alternatives exist - which is unprecedented in the history of money. They vote by acting.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Voting, in this context of political engagement, isn't just any ol' act of expressing a preference. "Vote with your dollars" is not voting, though you often hear people say this sort of thing, and I think this is why people now confuse voting with making decisions in general. You choose the green shirt, you don't "vote for green," when you dress yourself in the morning. Voting is the act of expressing a preference in a framework of governance that lets people engage with the governing structures and policies, and these days we also take it to mean that each person gets a vote so long as they're a citizen--they don't need to be rich or even literate. That isn't built into Bitcoin anywhere. It's antidemocratic because there is no way for every single user to express a preference in its design or operation. That doesn't seem to bother the bitcoin advocates I've talked with, either. The sense I get, and I realize this is not so charitable, is that they look at it as a way to be the guys in power in this new system, and aren't so keen to bake in some sort of voting because it'd just take that away again.

mahouse 11y ago

>what would you have them do, block ISP traffic? Forbid businesses from accepting BTC. It's that simple.