4 ms·

The longer I look at it, the more Bitcoin looks like a scheme to enrich criminals and enable rogue states to do business. Does it help the world economy that a

The longer I look at it, the more Bitcoin looks like a scheme to enrich criminals and enable rogue states to do business. Does it help the world economy that a large handful of people who go into bitcoin early now are controlling millions of dollars that they would have otherwise never, ever seen? And what of Bitcoins benefits? Anonymous? Not for normal people on coinbase/etc. Fast? Nope. Convenient for shopping? Not unless you are on overstock.com or buying magic mushrooms on silk road. Politically viable? China isn't having it. Can someone tell me what Bitcoin is good for again?

hellbanner 9y ago
I wish I could find the link, and Googling is cluttered: [0] There was an IMF (or World bank?) paper from the 70s, a .txt was online somewhere It described "a possible future of digital currency" .. and described Bitcoin with a lot of accuracy. [1] An analysis theorizing Bitcoin was first mined on networked computers running the same hardware config - something about how the randomness repeated and the rate of new hashes being found & the distribution of those hashes among the early addresses. Again, sorry I don't have a link, I naively assumed I could just search for this stuff in the future without saving a copy.. it was a Wordpress style blog though.
- tzakrajs 9y ago
  This is the most dangerous thing about the IMF stating that blockchain was the future of finance... they forgot that everyone immediately assumes Bitcoin when you say blockchain. They were specifically not referencing Bitcoin by name for a reason. "She pointed to distributed ledger technology like blockchain that can help make the banking system more inclusive." https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/bitcoin-get-serious-about-digital-currency-imf-christine-lagarde-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/bitcoin-get-serious-about-di... She is basically saying that banks need to come together and decide on a decentralized ledger system.
  - bdcravens 9y ago
    I don't think the 2 of you are talking about the same thing. Parent was talking about a more generalized paper from the 70s, not a statement from a current IMF head.
    - hellbanner 9y ago
      Yes, the paper I was referring to didn't say "blockchain". It was a theory on how digital money could work, with features like transacting across national boundaries
return0 9y ago
> who go into bitcoin early should be controlling millions of dollars that they would have otherwise never, ever seen? OK i don't know the moral significance of that in itself. Should the people of oil rich regions not have made the money they made? It's not answerable i think. The moral status of bitcoin rests on the support it receives by its community. Given that most of its value is currently in speculation, i would wager the average morals of the community are not aligned with what we 're used to.
- tzakrajs 9y ago
  Except people look the other way for oil exporters because we can run our cars on it. I can't do anything with all this spent electricity (that has also been converted into heat energy and released into our atmosphere, yay). Maybe BTC is good at accelerating global warming.

hellbanner 9y ago

I wish I could find the link, and Googling is cluttered: [0] There was an IMF (or World bank?) paper from the 70s, a .txt was online somewhere It described "a possible future of digital currency" .. and described Bitcoin with a lot of accuracy. [1] An analysis theorizing Bitcoin was first mined on networked computers running the same hardware config - something about how the randomness repeated and the rate of new hashes being found & the distribution of those hashes among the early addresses. Again, sorry I don't have a link, I naively assumed I could just search for this stuff in the future without saving a copy.. it was a Wordpress style blog though.

tzakrajs 9y ago
This is the most dangerous thing about the IMF stating that blockchain was the future of finance... they forgot that everyone immediately assumes Bitcoin when you say blockchain. They were specifically not referencing Bitcoin by name for a reason. "She pointed to distributed ledger technology like blockchain that can help make the banking system more inclusive." https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/bitcoin-get-serious-about-digital-currency-imf-christine-lagarde-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/bitcoin-get-serious-about-di... She is basically saying that banks need to come together and decide on a decentralized ledger system.
- bdcravens 9y ago
  I don't think the 2 of you are talking about the same thing. Parent was talking about a more generalized paper from the 70s, not a statement from a current IMF head.
  - hellbanner 9y ago
    Yes, the paper I was referring to didn't say "blockchain". It was a theory on how digital money could work, with features like transacting across national boundaries

return0 9y ago

> who go into bitcoin early should be controlling millions of dollars that they would have otherwise never, ever seen? OK i don't know the moral significance of that in itself. Should the people of oil rich regions not have made the money they made? It's not answerable i think. The moral status of bitcoin rests on the support it receives by its community. Given that most of its value is currently in speculation, i would wager the average morals of the community are not aligned with what we 're used to.

tzakrajs 9y ago
Except people look the other way for oil exporters because we can run our cars on it. I can't do anything with all this spent electricity (that has also been converted into heat energy and released into our atmosphere, yay). Maybe BTC is good at accelerating global warming.