3 ms·

> irrevocably to the proletariat Yes, a currency that is so hard to understand that even seasoned technocrats can't figure it out is perfect for the proletaria

> irrevocably to the proletariat Yes, a currency that is so hard to understand that even seasoned technocrats can't figure it out is perfect for the proletariat. Cryptocurrencies are yet another example of wealth transfer from educated elite to another educated elite. There is nothing "democratic" about it. It requires a tech expertise which 95% of the planet doesn't have to even accept/make a payment. Forget about "mining" it - 99.5% of the world's population doesn't have the knowledge or the resources for it.

verroq 9y ago
Computers at some point was technology that 95% of the planet doesn't understand.
- y4mi 9y ago
  Do you consider accessing Facebook as 'understanding computers'? If not, this number hasn't changed that much...
  - rublev 9y ago
    Do you consider having a wallet as 'understanding bitcoin'? If not, this number hasn't changed that much... We can do this all day. You don't need to understand anything other than downloading a wallet, storing your coins there, and being able to send them anywhere instantly.
    - bduerst 9y ago
      Except bitcoins are not instant, and aren't even guaranteed to go through. The transactions are also non-refundable and pseudo anonymous, unlike the payment methods in your wallet. This is not a feature. Making analogies with computers and smart phones and wallets doesn't mean Bitcoin is guaranteed to be successful or mass adopted.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Most people still don't understand computers, but they're easy to use and relatively predictable, although security is still a big problem. The thing about currency is that if people lose their money they might suffer and die. So it should be easy enough to understand that they can't easily be ripped off, and transparent enough that nobody can accumulate system-changing quantities without that being pretty obvious to everyone else. I've been interested in Bitcoin for years but understanding the Bitcoin ecosystem seems like a full-time job. You can't have an economy entirely based on financialization and trading, and if the people who specialize in handling the currency are sure to end up with the largest amounts of it then it's hardly better than what it's replacing. I'm not saying there should be no rewards for specializing in currency work, but I'd like to see some sort of self-limiting mechanism. I'm reminded of a humorous Stanislaw Lem story in which a wicked king is tricked into replacing all the currency in the kingdom with uranium coins, so that his insatiable desire to accumulate as much as possible in the royal treasury eventually leads to criticality and his subsequent destruction.
shpongled 9y ago
If you can't figure it out, you're not really a seasoned technocrat, are you? Sure, it requires some tech expertise right now. But so do ALL emerging technologies. Bitcoin will probably not be the dominant cryptocurrency forever. I foresee whichever one is able to be quickly and secured transferred and stored on smartphones changing the global economy. Think about how many people in developing countries have phones and need a way to securely transact and store currency.

verroq 9y ago

Computers at some point was technology that 95% of the planet doesn't understand.

y4mi 9y ago
Do you consider accessing Facebook as 'understanding computers'? If not, this number hasn't changed that much...
- rublev 9y ago
  Do you consider having a wallet as 'understanding bitcoin'? If not, this number hasn't changed that much... We can do this all day. You don't need to understand anything other than downloading a wallet, storing your coins there, and being able to send them anywhere instantly.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    Except bitcoins are not instant, and aren't even guaranteed to go through. The transactions are also non-refundable and pseudo anonymous, unlike the payment methods in your wallet. This is not a feature. Making analogies with computers and smart phones and wallets doesn't mean Bitcoin is guaranteed to be successful or mass adopted.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Most people still don't understand computers, but they're easy to use and relatively predictable, although security is still a big problem. The thing about currency is that if people lose their money they might suffer and die. So it should be easy enough to understand that they can't easily be ripped off, and transparent enough that nobody can accumulate system-changing quantities without that being pretty obvious to everyone else. I've been interested in Bitcoin for years but understanding the Bitcoin ecosystem seems like a full-time job. You can't have an economy entirely based on financialization and trading, and if the people who specialize in handling the currency are sure to end up with the largest amounts of it then it's hardly better than what it's replacing. I'm not saying there should be no rewards for specializing in currency work, but I'd like to see some sort of self-limiting mechanism. I'm reminded of a humorous Stanislaw Lem story in which a wicked king is tricked into replacing all the currency in the kingdom with uranium coins, so that his insatiable desire to accumulate as much as possible in the royal treasury eventually leads to criticality and his subsequent destruction.

shpongled 9y ago

If you can't figure it out, you're not really a seasoned technocrat, are you? Sure, it requires some tech expertise right now. But so do ALL emerging technologies. Bitcoin will probably not be the dominant cryptocurrency forever. I foresee whichever one is able to be quickly and secured transferred and stored on smartphones changing the global economy. Think about how many people in developing countries have phones and need a way to securely transact and store currency.