5 ms·

Why laugh at someone's failure? They're trying to pull off a very different power structure. It has political issues they clearly haven't worked out, but how mu

Why laugh at someone's failure? They're trying to pull off a very different power structure. It has political issues they clearly haven't worked out, but how much time in the grand scheme have they had to do so compared to the standard ones?

danielweber 11y ago
It's always harder to do something than to sit around watching the people doing it. So I give you that. This is hard. However, every time someone has interacted with the Bitcoin community and dealt with the assholes telling them "you just don't get it! this is the new economy!", it makes that someone smile a little bit each time there's bad news.
- orblivion 11y ago
  Yeah I'll give you that.
Frondo 11y ago
Well, because, frankly speaking, they're trying to pull off a very different power structure without getting buy-in from everyone involved. Green U.S. money? At least, at the end of the election cycle, I can cast a vote for someone who will appoint a Fed chair I like. There's some tenuous link from the decision-makers back to me, an American voter. The bitcoin people? They just said "here it is, oh and also we call all the shots, kthxbye". What if there's some feature of the new power structure I don't like? Where can I seek redress? Ask a bitcoin advocate, and what you get is crickets. A new power structure should be more inclusive of people's voices, not less. So, in this case, I welcome the failure.
- aianus 11y ago
  > At least, at the end of the election cycle, I can cast a vote for someone who will appoint a Fed chair I like. With Bitcoin, you can "cast your vote" for what software the network is running too; you buy a miner and contribute to a mining pool that agrees with your philosophies. Of course, unlike a federal election (or maybe not...), more capital => more votes. The core developers really don't have any power beyond that given to them by individual miners and mining investors.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Well, and that is simply not casting a vote. Voting isn't just, as I said elsewhere here recently, "inferring preferences from behavior". It's a regular process, a structured reassessing of power. Maybe if you said "every year on March 1st, everyone shuts down their client and chooses a new one" and there were several well-maintained clients that had different policy choices encoded into them for people to "vote" with, then we'd be a little closer to a democratic power-in-the-hands-of-the-people kind of thing. But as it is right now? No, there's no voting, nor democratic power-sharing, in Bitcoin.
    - aianus 11y ago
      What guarantees do you have the president you elect will do what he says? What is your recourse if he doesn't live up to your expectations? Being able to change one's vote at any time regarding any issue seems preferable to everyone sitting powerless for four years at a time in between scheduled elections.
      - jbmorgado 11y ago
        "Being able to change one's vote at any time regarding any issue seems preferable to everyone sitting powerless for four years at a time in between scheduled elections" I'm not even addressing what the OP was telling you, that you don't vote and that the "votes" are all in the hands of a few people. But, even if everyone was entitled to a vote, being able to change it anytime they like would make a for a very, very poor government system. I can only imagine, 1st long term project the government had that didn't give you short term profit you would change your vote. P.S.: Interestingly enough is exactly what is happening in Bitcoin right now: long term sustainability calls for changes to the block size, but short term profit calls for it to remain the same, so the few miners that control the network just go for the short term profit.
        aianus 11y ago
        > But, even if everyone was entitled to a vote, being able to change it anytime they like would make a for a very, very poor government system. I don't disagree. But you can hardly call it "undemocratic".
- jamoes 11y ago
  With bitcoin, the election cycle is always happening. Every single block miners decide which rules they want to enforce, and which proposals they want to signal support for. You want to support 2 MB blocks? Run Bitcoin Classic, or point your mining software toward a pool that supports it. You want to support segwit? Run Core 0.12.1. Ultimately, the market decides what becomes of bitcoin, not some unaccountable, unelected bureaucrat. Also, with bitcoin, all interaction is completely voluntary. There are no legal tender laws or taxation propping up the value of the currency. > So, in this case, I welcome the failure. I wouldn't hold your breath. Bitcoin has been through many incidents that are far worse than this, and it's only come out stronger for it.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    That's not an election. That's not voting. And you and the other guy are illustrating really well what I mean about the bitcoiner anti-democratic point of view. Running a piece of software isn't voting, and isn't "power to the people," but you guys get so stuck up on this wordplay about how running the software is the real, authentic "voting" that you really kinda miss the boat there. So, well done with that.
    - EdHominem 11y ago
      So what does a real authentic vote look like to you, in a decentralized system? Who calls for the vote? Who counts them? Who is allowed to vote? Who isn't? Who proposes ideas for a vote? When the pool of people who understand what Bitcoin is gets totally overwhelmed by people who don't, what keeps really stupid decisions from being made? When people vote for something that isn't already coded, who is responsible for coding it?
  - jbmorgado 11y ago
    What you are describing is not a democracy, it's a textbook plutocracy.
- randotossr33 11y ago
  You can vote for someone that says they'll appoint that Fed chair. And even then the Fed chair could have reason to implement policy that is contrary to your interests. In fact, the status quo is that your opinion and vote for that person is ignored. I'm reminded of the Princeton/Northwestern study suggested Congress passes laws that run contrary to the will of the people ~90% of the time. So what's the value in your tenuous link when inputs are sent straight to /dev/null https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
- EdHominem 11y ago
  > Where can I seek redress? Ask a bitcoin advocate, and what you get is crickets. No, you've gotten countless answers: "Nowhere." In the same way you can't reverse a transaction, you can't have a vote. It doesn't work that way. > A new power structure should be more inclusive of people's voices, not less. You've had a voice. We've seen your posts about how you're so ignored because nobody is writing a patch to release more coins. It's been heard, but it's a bad idea. If you like that type of currency, use your government's. > Basically, what bugs me about bitcoin is that legitimate critiques are always brushed off with really absurd replies. Have you posted any legitimate critiques? I haven't seen any... > Or the deflationary economics of the system itself, and those aren't good either. Yeah, that's an example. You don't know the system or the goals so how could you have valid comments, let alone legitimate criticism?
- orblivion 11y ago
  That's really interesting as a libertarian to hear that sort of perspective. It's so reversed from how I see things. To me, you have a vote which has an infinitesimal chance of swaying the election, and then you hope that the candidate you voted for appoints a fed chair you like. Further, you hope that fed chair does a good job, and that their policies are correct. If not, you have to wait four years for to give the same input. With Bitcoin, you just...don't use Bitcoin. If you're invested at the point somebody does something you don't like, sell off. Presumably the ones on top are heavily invested themselves and will feel a massive sell off in their bottom line. All that said, the different power structure I was talking about is one where nobody has that kind of power to begin with. That there is somebody at the top at all is a failure, IMO.
st3v3r 11y ago
Because the attitude of some of the more hardcore Bitcoin people is a holier than thou, "We're the only ones who REALLY know about money and currency and financial policy. You idiots with fiat money don't know anything!" persecution complex which is really annoying.

danielweber 11y ago

It's always harder to do something than to sit around watching the people doing it. So I give you that. This is hard. However, every time someone has interacted with the Bitcoin community and dealt with the assholes telling them "you just don't get it! this is the new economy!", it makes that someone smile a little bit each time there's bad news.

orblivion 11y ago
Yeah I'll give you that.

Frondo 11y ago

Well, because, frankly speaking, they're trying to pull off a very different power structure without getting buy-in from everyone involved. Green U.S. money? At least, at the end of the election cycle, I can cast a vote for someone who will appoint a Fed chair I like. There's some tenuous link from the decision-makers back to me, an American voter. The bitcoin people? They just said "here it is, oh and also we call all the shots, kthxbye". What if there's some feature of the new power structure I don't like? Where can I seek redress? Ask a bitcoin advocate, and what you get is crickets. A new power structure should be more inclusive of people's voices, not less. So, in this case, I welcome the failure.

aianus 11y ago
> At least, at the end of the election cycle, I can cast a vote for someone who will appoint a Fed chair I like. With Bitcoin, you can "cast your vote" for what software the network is running too; you buy a miner and contribute to a mining pool that agrees with your philosophies. Of course, unlike a federal election (or maybe not...), more capital => more votes. The core developers really don't have any power beyond that given to them by individual miners and mining investors.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Well, and that is simply not casting a vote. Voting isn't just, as I said elsewhere here recently, "inferring preferences from behavior". It's a regular process, a structured reassessing of power. Maybe if you said "every year on March 1st, everyone shuts down their client and chooses a new one" and there were several well-maintained clients that had different policy choices encoded into them for people to "vote" with, then we'd be a little closer to a democratic power-in-the-hands-of-the-people kind of thing. But as it is right now? No, there's no voting, nor democratic power-sharing, in Bitcoin.
  - aianus 11y ago
    What guarantees do you have the president you elect will do what he says? What is your recourse if he doesn't live up to your expectations? Being able to change one's vote at any time regarding any issue seems preferable to everyone sitting powerless for four years at a time in between scheduled elections.
    - jbmorgado 11y ago
      "Being able to change one's vote at any time regarding any issue seems preferable to everyone sitting powerless for four years at a time in between scheduled elections" I'm not even addressing what the OP was telling you, that you don't vote and that the "votes" are all in the hands of a few people. But, even if everyone was entitled to a vote, being able to change it anytime they like would make a for a very, very poor government system. I can only imagine, 1st long term project the government had that didn't give you short term profit you would change your vote. P.S.: Interestingly enough is exactly what is happening in Bitcoin right now: long term sustainability calls for changes to the block size, but short term profit calls for it to remain the same, so the few miners that control the network just go for the short term profit.
      - aianus 11y ago
        > But, even if everyone was entitled to a vote, being able to change it anytime they like would make a for a very, very poor government system. I don't disagree. But you can hardly call it "undemocratic".
jamoes 11y ago
With bitcoin, the election cycle is always happening. Every single block miners decide which rules they want to enforce, and which proposals they want to signal support for. You want to support 2 MB blocks? Run Bitcoin Classic, or point your mining software toward a pool that supports it. You want to support segwit? Run Core 0.12.1. Ultimately, the market decides what becomes of bitcoin, not some unaccountable, unelected bureaucrat. Also, with bitcoin, all interaction is completely voluntary. There are no legal tender laws or taxation propping up the value of the currency. > So, in this case, I welcome the failure. I wouldn't hold your breath. Bitcoin has been through many incidents that are far worse than this, and it's only come out stronger for it.
- Frondo 11y ago
  That's not an election. That's not voting. And you and the other guy are illustrating really well what I mean about the bitcoiner anti-democratic point of view. Running a piece of software isn't voting, and isn't "power to the people," but you guys get so stuck up on this wordplay about how running the software is the real, authentic "voting" that you really kinda miss the boat there. So, well done with that.
  - EdHominem 11y ago
    So what does a real authentic vote look like to you, in a decentralized system? Who calls for the vote? Who counts them? Who is allowed to vote? Who isn't? Who proposes ideas for a vote? When the pool of people who understand what Bitcoin is gets totally overwhelmed by people who don't, what keeps really stupid decisions from being made? When people vote for something that isn't already coded, who is responsible for coding it?
- jbmorgado 11y ago
  What you are describing is not a democracy, it's a textbook plutocracy.
randotossr33 11y ago
You can vote for someone that says they'll appoint that Fed chair. And even then the Fed chair could have reason to implement policy that is contrary to your interests. In fact, the status quo is that your opinion and vote for that person is ignored. I'm reminded of the Princeton/Northwestern study suggested Congress passes laws that run contrary to the will of the people ~90% of the time. So what's the value in your tenuous link when inputs are sent straight to /dev/null https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
EdHominem 11y ago
> Where can I seek redress? Ask a bitcoin advocate, and what you get is crickets. No, you've gotten countless answers: "Nowhere." In the same way you can't reverse a transaction, you can't have a vote. It doesn't work that way. > A new power structure should be more inclusive of people's voices, not less. You've had a voice. We've seen your posts about how you're so ignored because nobody is writing a patch to release more coins. It's been heard, but it's a bad idea. If you like that type of currency, use your government's. > Basically, what bugs me about bitcoin is that legitimate critiques are always brushed off with really absurd replies. Have you posted any legitimate critiques? I haven't seen any... > Or the deflationary economics of the system itself, and those aren't good either. Yeah, that's an example. You don't know the system or the goals so how could you have valid comments, let alone legitimate criticism?
orblivion 11y ago
That's really interesting as a libertarian to hear that sort of perspective. It's so reversed from how I see things. To me, you have a vote which has an infinitesimal chance of swaying the election, and then you hope that the candidate you voted for appoints a fed chair you like. Further, you hope that fed chair does a good job, and that their policies are correct. If not, you have to wait four years for to give the same input. With Bitcoin, you just...don't use Bitcoin. If you're invested at the point somebody does something you don't like, sell off. Presumably the ones on top are heavily invested themselves and will feel a massive sell off in their bottom line. All that said, the different power structure I was talking about is one where nobody has that kind of power to begin with. That there is somebody at the top at all is a failure, IMO.

st3v3r 11y ago

Because the attitude of some of the more hardcore Bitcoin people is a holier than thou, "We're the only ones who REALLY know about money and currency and financial policy. You idiots with fiat money don't know anything!" persecution complex which is really annoying.