4 ms·

I mean, it seems to be working. I don't really like the implications either, but it's a bit of a stretch to say it's not economics.

pedrocr 9y ago
I'm not saying it's not economics, just that bitcoin (and the other cryptocurrencies in existence) seem to have quite a few fatal flaws going forward from just our understanding of normal economics, let alone a new branch someone wants to start.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  From your Reddit comment: I have no issue with the people that invented a specific technology getting rewarded for that. But that's not what's happening here. You're giving a few early adopters most of what you want to then use to price all the assets in the world. I'm not sure anybody is saying that bitcoin will be used to price all assets in the world. USD currently isn't, for example. It's just the dominant currency. A reasonable estimate for all the dollars in the world is 10 trillion. Say that bitcoin being a full sucess is it being valued at a total of 5 billion. Now consider that Satoshi has about 5% of all bitcoins that will ever exist. That puts him as 3x richer than the current richest man in the world. I don't see anything in bitcoin that justifies that kind of payout and that's for the inventor of the thing. We don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. And this seems to be allowed under our legal system, so I'm not sure the moral argument is valid. Why do you feel it's immoral for Satoshi to own 5%? We don't even know if he's alive or still has access to the coins, but let's say for the sake of argument that he does.
  - pedrocr 9y ago
    >I'm not sure anybody is saying that bitcoin will be used to price all assets in the world. USD currently isn't, for example. It's just the dominant currency. Most things are actually priced in dollars to some extent, perhaps with some conversions. Maybe euros in some other cases. >Why do you feel it's immoral for Satoshi to own 5%? We don't even know if he's alive or still has access to the coins, but let's say for the sake of argument that he does. I'm not making a morality argument. Just pointing out that it will be a hard pill to swallow that for the (in my view small) advantages of cryptocurrencies we as a society complete the most massive wealth transfer to a single individual ever attempted. For me it's an argument as to why it's implausible crypto currencies will take hold as they exist today. They require a huge wealth transfer to a few early adopters for very little gain. If the advantages were greater it seems more likely to me that a new chain would be bootstrapped but I'm not even convinced it's worthwhile enough that it will actually take hold on a massive scale.
    - sunshinerag 9y ago
      Satoshi created Bitcoin. There is no wealth(bitcoin based) to transfer if not for him. It is not upto you or others to decide whether the 5% belongs to him or not.
  - alexandros 9y ago
    To go one step further, who says inventing a better currency shouldn't be worth 3x as much as creating e.g. walmart or microsoft? Sounds exactly like the sort of civilisational step forward that should be rewarded handily. Remember, we're talking about a world in which bitcoin has absorbed 50% of the world's assets, presumably because it's better in some real way than other currencies.
    - pedrocr 9y ago
      >Remember, we're talking about a world in which bitcoin has absorbed 50% of the world's assets Bitcoin proponents keep misunderstanding this. Most of the world's assets are not currencies, they are stocks, bonds, land, etc that we do use currencies to price but we are not holding currencies when we own them. The fact that central banks can inflate currencies doesn't change the value of assets just their pricing under those currencies. So creating a new way to price assets with something that has a guaranteed fixed supply is not a big innovation. If you want that just use gold. It has a much longer history, much less volatility, much less chance of being replaced by the next fad, and isn't mainly owned by a few recent early adopters. >presumably because it's better in some real way than other currencies. That's the point someone still needs to make. Modern financial systems are pretty efficient and featureful. Bitcoin is for people that believe in a narrow scenario where normal institutions have failed and yet the internet and the mining infrastructure is still working. To me that seems incredibly unlikely especially given how mining economics and evolution have made it highly centralized in a few players in China.
      - cromon 9y ago
        Considering how old gold is its distribution is pretty slim https://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/who-owns-worlds-gold/2491 https://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/who-owns-worlds-gold/24... And it's far from immune to being manipulated. http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1489601367.php http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1489601367.php
- guscost 9y ago
  > bitcoin (and the other cryptocurrencies in existence) seem to have quite a few fatal flaws going forward from just our understanding of normal economics How long would Bitcoin have to survive these flaws before you start to question your understanding of economics?
  - pedrocr 9y ago
    It's not enough to survive it has to become a relevant currency and/or store of value worldwide. At 40B$ in market cap bitcoin is still a curiosity in financial terms. Worldwide dollar supply and US GDP are in the 15-20 T$ range. If Bitcoin reaches half that in value and in transactions without fixing any flaws I'll be impressed.
    - guscost 9y ago
      This isn't consistent with your original claim ("fatal flaw" implies that the perception of any existing value will be destroyed), but OK. I'll check back in ~25 years.
      - pedrocr 9y ago
        I specifically said "fatal flaws going forward". Nobody cares if your magic cards trading platform is not very economically sound.
        guscost 9y ago
        That's a wispy rhetorical straw you're grasping now, but I won't deny it is a real straw. Fair enough. The phrase "limiting flaw" would be less confusing.
        pedrocr 9y ago
        There's nothing rethorical about saying that something that currently works at a small scale can reveal fatal flaws when it tries to reach a large scale.

pedrocr 9y ago

I'm not saying it's not economics, just that bitcoin (and the other cryptocurrencies in existence) seem to have quite a few fatal flaws going forward from just our understanding of normal economics, let alone a new branch someone wants to start.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
From your Reddit comment: I have no issue with the people that invented a specific technology getting rewarded for that. But that's not what's happening here. You're giving a few early adopters most of what you want to then use to price all the assets in the world. I'm not sure anybody is saying that bitcoin will be used to price all assets in the world. USD currently isn't, for example. It's just the dominant currency. A reasonable estimate for all the dollars in the world is 10 trillion. Say that bitcoin being a full sucess is it being valued at a total of 5 billion. Now consider that Satoshi has about 5% of all bitcoins that will ever exist. That puts him as 3x richer than the current richest man in the world. I don't see anything in bitcoin that justifies that kind of payout and that's for the inventor of the thing. We don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. And this seems to be allowed under our legal system, so I'm not sure the moral argument is valid. Why do you feel it's immoral for Satoshi to own 5%? We don't even know if he's alive or still has access to the coins, but let's say for the sake of argument that he does.
- pedrocr 9y ago
  >I'm not sure anybody is saying that bitcoin will be used to price all assets in the world. USD currently isn't, for example. It's just the dominant currency. Most things are actually priced in dollars to some extent, perhaps with some conversions. Maybe euros in some other cases. >Why do you feel it's immoral for Satoshi to own 5%? We don't even know if he's alive or still has access to the coins, but let's say for the sake of argument that he does. I'm not making a morality argument. Just pointing out that it will be a hard pill to swallow that for the (in my view small) advantages of cryptocurrencies we as a society complete the most massive wealth transfer to a single individual ever attempted. For me it's an argument as to why it's implausible crypto currencies will take hold as they exist today. They require a huge wealth transfer to a few early adopters for very little gain. If the advantages were greater it seems more likely to me that a new chain would be bootstrapped but I'm not even convinced it's worthwhile enough that it will actually take hold on a massive scale.
  - sunshinerag 9y ago
    Satoshi created Bitcoin. There is no wealth(bitcoin based) to transfer if not for him. It is not upto you or others to decide whether the 5% belongs to him or not.
- alexandros 9y ago
  To go one step further, who says inventing a better currency shouldn't be worth 3x as much as creating e.g. walmart or microsoft? Sounds exactly like the sort of civilisational step forward that should be rewarded handily. Remember, we're talking about a world in which bitcoin has absorbed 50% of the world's assets, presumably because it's better in some real way than other currencies.
  - pedrocr 9y ago
    >Remember, we're talking about a world in which bitcoin has absorbed 50% of the world's assets Bitcoin proponents keep misunderstanding this. Most of the world's assets are not currencies, they are stocks, bonds, land, etc that we do use currencies to price but we are not holding currencies when we own them. The fact that central banks can inflate currencies doesn't change the value of assets just their pricing under those currencies. So creating a new way to price assets with something that has a guaranteed fixed supply is not a big innovation. If you want that just use gold. It has a much longer history, much less volatility, much less chance of being replaced by the next fad, and isn't mainly owned by a few recent early adopters. >presumably because it's better in some real way than other currencies. That's the point someone still needs to make. Modern financial systems are pretty efficient and featureful. Bitcoin is for people that believe in a narrow scenario where normal institutions have failed and yet the internet and the mining infrastructure is still working. To me that seems incredibly unlikely especially given how mining economics and evolution have made it highly centralized in a few players in China.
    - cromon 9y ago
      Considering how old gold is its distribution is pretty slim https://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/who-owns-worlds-gold/2491 https://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/who-owns-worlds-gold/24... And it's far from immune to being manipulated. http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1489601367.php http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1489601367.php
guscost 9y ago
> bitcoin (and the other cryptocurrencies in existence) seem to have quite a few fatal flaws going forward from just our understanding of normal economics How long would Bitcoin have to survive these flaws before you start to question your understanding of economics?
- pedrocr 9y ago
  It's not enough to survive it has to become a relevant currency and/or store of value worldwide. At 40B$ in market cap bitcoin is still a curiosity in financial terms. Worldwide dollar supply and US GDP are in the 15-20 T$ range. If Bitcoin reaches half that in value and in transactions without fixing any flaws I'll be impressed.
  - guscost 9y ago
    This isn't consistent with your original claim ("fatal flaw" implies that the perception of any existing value will be destroyed), but OK. I'll check back in ~25 years.
    - pedrocr 9y ago
      I specifically said "fatal flaws going forward". Nobody cares if your magic cards trading platform is not very economically sound.
      - guscost 9y ago
        That's a wispy rhetorical straw you're grasping now, but I won't deny it is a real straw. Fair enough. The phrase "limiting flaw" would be less confusing.
        pedrocr 9y ago
        There's nothing rethorical about saying that something that currently works at a small scale can reveal fatal flaws when it tries to reach a large scale.