5 ms·

As I posted further down - most of the issues here seem to stem from people having this idea that in the extreme long term Bitcoin takes over the world and 'the

As I posted further down - most of the issues here seem to stem from people having this idea that in the extreme long term Bitcoin takes over the world and 'their' (as if this is some sort of holy war?) green bits of paper become firewood or something. That isn't a realistic model for how the world works and is really just an odd way of thinking. I can play Quake 3 and have fun with it, and post blogs about it, without thinking it's going to destroy every other video game out there ever, without debating whether it even is a video game, etc. Hey, it has fast inverse square root, that's cool, but it's not going to result in the actual world being deleted and exchanged for CGI VR land. Fundamentally it seems to be that there's some element of 'faith in the concept', that is turned off when it comes to money, perhaps as a protection mechanism. I don't know. ... Just chill out, you know? I might go out for a run soon. You can still walk, don't worry, it's not banned (I also walk, it's useful, maybe we can be friends?).

pjc50 10y ago
In the pre-Gox days of the Bitcoin subreddit you could find plenty of people advocating exactly that - that Bitcoin would make not just 'fiat' money obsolete but government itself. Any idea, good or bad, is vulnerable to being discredited by its most annoying public advocates. Bitcoin 'hate' is mostly a reaction by people who encountered this and got fed up with it. Not to mention that Bitcoin is explicitly anti-environmentalist: it's built on vast amounts of wasted electricity.
- stegosaurus 10y ago
  >> In the pre-Gox days of the Bitcoin subreddit This is true! You don't have to agree with them, though. The network still exists and is cool and useful regardless. You don't even need to use Reddit! I don't hang out on reddit.com/r/visa (does it even exist?) >> Not to mention that Bitcoin is explicitly anti-environmentalist I think it would be fairer to say that it's 'a-environmentalist'. The badness or goodness of energy use for PoW just wasn't really a concern. When I play Quake 3, my computer uses more energy. I consider that an acceptable compromise. Perhaps there are people out there that don't, so they don't play it. I would find it quite odd if they criticized my habits, though. We should be trying to get along, not looking for chances to grumble at each other, you know?
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  > anti-environmentalist ... vast amounts of wasted electricity Ironically uses politically-charged language when discussing how bitcoin gets political. How about: "I'm concerned with the amount of electricity devoted to mining." Some of the bitcoin-is-going-to-take-over advocates could counter with, "That electricity cost is a lot better for the environment than the standing armies required to secure fiat money."
  - Frondo 10y ago
    And, of course, the idea that bitcoin changes the world so radically that no one has an army anymore is absurd. But I think you've just touched on another reason why people react so strongly to bitcoin-related articles. It's like, bitcoin started out with a pretty good-sounding idea: decentralized currency, like the old Gnutella network except for money! hey I like it! Then people start talking about it and the first next step is "hey and bitcoin takes control over money and puts it into the hands of the PEOPLE" except it doesn't! It doesn't at all! Control over the money supply, there's at least some tenuous link between votes we regularly cast as citizens and the people making those decisions. Decisions over bitcoin's economics? Better start coding, except no one will accept your patches to bump up the 21 million bitcoin supply...not so democratic. Then the conversation turns to pretty goofy new-world-order stuff, like "bitcoin will eliminate the need for nations to have standing armies!!" Except the reality is, look at how the bitcoin people themselves squabble like a bunch of old hens, in the face of what seem to be legitimate critiques. These are the people leading the way to a new world order? I don't think so. And then we look at the environmental costs, and that's not good. Or the deflationary economics of the system itself, and those aren't good either. Or how it seems a lot more like an elaborate ponzi scheme, and that's not good either. Basically, what bugs me about bitcoin is that legitimate critiques are always brushed off with really absurd replies. Kinda kills the whole thing for me.
    - CyberDildonics 10y ago
      > no one will accept your patches to bump up the 21 million bitcoin supply...not so democratic. Why would anyone willingly dilute their own money? > legitimate critiques are always brushed off with really absurd replies > And then we look at the environmental costs, and that's not good. Or the deflationary economics of the system itself, and those aren't good either. Or how it seems a lot more like an elaborate ponzi scheme, and that's not good either. These are not legitimate critiques without real data to back them up. Without real data they are conjecture based on emotion.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > Not to mention that Bitcoin is explicitly anti-environmentalist: it's built on vast amounts of wasted electricity. That like saying Tesla's are anti-environmentalist, it's built to waste vast amounts electricity. It's quite literally non-sense. Point at any other nations currency that consumes less energy than Bitcoin; you think printing bills and minting coins doesn't use energy? You think moving giants piles of cash around in big trucks between banks doesn't use energy? You think banks and guards and trucking don't use energy? Bitcoin is the pro-environmentalist approach, it uses far less energy than a typical currency does.
  - CJefferson 10y ago
    But the whole bitcoin network does a tiny, tiny number of transactions compared to any of those other systems. The cost per transaction (of the system, not to the user) of bitcoin is comparatively huge.
    - Natanael_L 10y ago
      And yet the actual expense each transaction incurs is trivial, a boost in the number of transactions wouldn't increase the expenses of mining.
Rmilb 10y ago
I think the perception that all Bitcoin advocates think that Bitcoin will "Destroy" all fiat money and we will all be worshiping Satoshi for delivering us, is wide spread and mostly false.

pjc50 10y ago

In the pre-Gox days of the Bitcoin subreddit you could find plenty of people advocating exactly that - that Bitcoin would make not just 'fiat' money obsolete but government itself. Any idea, good or bad, is vulnerable to being discredited by its most annoying public advocates. Bitcoin 'hate' is mostly a reaction by people who encountered this and got fed up with it. Not to mention that Bitcoin is explicitly anti-environmentalist: it's built on vast amounts of wasted electricity.

stegosaurus 10y ago
>> In the pre-Gox days of the Bitcoin subreddit This is true! You don't have to agree with them, though. The network still exists and is cool and useful regardless. You don't even need to use Reddit! I don't hang out on reddit.com/r/visa (does it even exist?) >> Not to mention that Bitcoin is explicitly anti-environmentalist I think it would be fairer to say that it's 'a-environmentalist'. The badness or goodness of energy use for PoW just wasn't really a concern. When I play Quake 3, my computer uses more energy. I consider that an acceptable compromise. Perhaps there are people out there that don't, so they don't play it. I would find it quite odd if they criticized my habits, though. We should be trying to get along, not looking for chances to grumble at each other, you know?
clarkmoody 10y ago
> anti-environmentalist ... vast amounts of wasted electricity Ironically uses politically-charged language when discussing how bitcoin gets political. How about: "I'm concerned with the amount of electricity devoted to mining." Some of the bitcoin-is-going-to-take-over advocates could counter with, "That electricity cost is a lot better for the environment than the standing armies required to secure fiat money."
- Frondo 10y ago
  And, of course, the idea that bitcoin changes the world so radically that no one has an army anymore is absurd. But I think you've just touched on another reason why people react so strongly to bitcoin-related articles. It's like, bitcoin started out with a pretty good-sounding idea: decentralized currency, like the old Gnutella network except for money! hey I like it! Then people start talking about it and the first next step is "hey and bitcoin takes control over money and puts it into the hands of the PEOPLE" except it doesn't! It doesn't at all! Control over the money supply, there's at least some tenuous link between votes we regularly cast as citizens and the people making those decisions. Decisions over bitcoin's economics? Better start coding, except no one will accept your patches to bump up the 21 million bitcoin supply...not so democratic. Then the conversation turns to pretty goofy new-world-order stuff, like "bitcoin will eliminate the need for nations to have standing armies!!" Except the reality is, look at how the bitcoin people themselves squabble like a bunch of old hens, in the face of what seem to be legitimate critiques. These are the people leading the way to a new world order? I don't think so. And then we look at the environmental costs, and that's not good. Or the deflationary economics of the system itself, and those aren't good either. Or how it seems a lot more like an elaborate ponzi scheme, and that's not good either. Basically, what bugs me about bitcoin is that legitimate critiques are always brushed off with really absurd replies. Kinda kills the whole thing for me.
  - CyberDildonics 10y ago
    > no one will accept your patches to bump up the 21 million bitcoin supply...not so democratic. Why would anyone willingly dilute their own money? > legitimate critiques are always brushed off with really absurd replies > And then we look at the environmental costs, and that's not good. Or the deflationary economics of the system itself, and those aren't good either. Or how it seems a lot more like an elaborate ponzi scheme, and that's not good either. These are not legitimate critiques without real data to back them up. Without real data they are conjecture based on emotion.
gnaritas 10y ago
> Not to mention that Bitcoin is explicitly anti-environmentalist: it's built on vast amounts of wasted electricity. That like saying Tesla's are anti-environmentalist, it's built to waste vast amounts electricity. It's quite literally non-sense. Point at any other nations currency that consumes less energy than Bitcoin; you think printing bills and minting coins doesn't use energy? You think moving giants piles of cash around in big trucks between banks doesn't use energy? You think banks and guards and trucking don't use energy? Bitcoin is the pro-environmentalist approach, it uses far less energy than a typical currency does.
- CJefferson 10y ago
  But the whole bitcoin network does a tiny, tiny number of transactions compared to any of those other systems. The cost per transaction (of the system, not to the user) of bitcoin is comparatively huge.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    And yet the actual expense each transaction incurs is trivial, a boost in the number of transactions wouldn't increase the expenses of mining.

Rmilb 10y ago

I think the perception that all Bitcoin advocates think that Bitcoin will "Destroy" all fiat money and we will all be worshiping Satoshi for delivering us, is wide spread and mostly false.