5 ms·

Can you outline those ignorances in some sort of testable way? Or is this just a long way of saying “I disagree”?

Frogolocalypse 9y ago
The ignorance stems from some sort of belief structure that allows one to believe that it would even be possible to outlaw bitcoin. Either bitcoin is valuable, or it is not. If it is, one should question why it is, and more importantly, why it is more valuable to people than the alternative. But rather than admit the problems of the alternative, he suggests something that is completely impractical (and downright sinister) because he would prefer not to discuss the reasons for its value in the first place.
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  So to state your hypothesis as a testable bet, your claim is that a government could not outlaw the possession, sale or purchase of Bitcoin. His claim is they could. If any government does this you’re the ignorant one? And if they try and fail he is?
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    No. We have historical precedent : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 The only thing it did was increase the value of gold. And our world is far far far more able to circumvent any order like this, as any wealthy person storing their money in panama will tell you. Bitcoin is the reckoning for that belief. Rather than discuss the reason for the failure of their fiat system, which is what they're discussing right now, they want to restrict your freedom of exchanging the fruits of your labor for tokens in a system outside of their control. Freedom isn't about you asking the the government what you can do. Freedom is about the government asking your permission to govern in the interests of their constituents. If they can't convince you to use their token, they should start working now to come to a resolution that respects the rights of the people who choose not to buy their token for anything other than taxes.
    - kasey_junk 9y ago
      A counter argument https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_dollar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_dollar
      - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
        That isn't really a counter to any argument I'm making. If anything, it supports my argument. The government that supported that fiat ceased to exist, therefore the fiat ceased to exist. Sounds like a pretty good example of the dangers of fiat, and the advantages of a decentralized store of wealth.
        kasey_junk 9y ago
        Owning a particular currency was made illegal by a government. That government enforced that policy by force of arms. That currency ceased to exist. Ergo it is not ignorant to claim that s government can eliminate a currency & quite the opposite it’s ignorant to say its impossible.
        Frogolocalypse 9y ago
        Making it illegal didn't make people not have it, just like the gold executive order, so that hasn't proven your case. Making the government cease to exist and therefore ceasing to be redeemable only proves my case.
        colordrops 9y ago
        They could eliminate it because it had a central point of control. There are over two hundred other countries and a black market that can't be stopped even if the US outlaws Bitcoin.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      What it also did was transfer a lot of gold from private individuals and corporations to the government.
  - cwkoss 9y ago
    I think the testable bet is "If the US government outlawed possession of Bitcoin, the black market value of Bitcoin within the US would fall to $0"
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      Yeah. Just like drugs.
    - kasey_junk 9y ago
      That’s an exceptional bet. Would you suggest that someone who took the ‘yes’ side of that bet was ignorant simply for being on that side?
      - cwkoss 9y ago
        Maybe, I'd at least say they have limited knowledge of the history of prohibitions
        kasey_junk 9y ago
        See I view it on the other side. Someone who has studied currencies that weren’t backed by nation states (or worse were actively worked against) would pretty easily find reason to take that bet. His entire position is that currencies are the domain of nation states. It’s a reasoned position, based on his long distinguished career.
        Frogolocalypse 9y ago
        Oh I get it. He doesn't understand how bitcoin works, and why would he? It is a very complex subject. Bitcoin is something very new, and all it took to make it work was the genius solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem unsolvability proof. Without that solution, decentralized crypto-currencies don't work. It is pure genius.
21 9y ago
An obvious form of ignorance is saying "bitcoin has no value", (maybe with the "intrinsic" word thrown in there), despite the manifest fact of a market price, and of a huge run up. Value is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder, and dismissing bitcoin, or CounterStrike skins, or World of Warcraft assets as valueless is ignorant. They can't see the simple "repetition becomes truth" driver of bitcoin price, as in the longer the price is not zero, and the longer people talk between themselfs about the bitcoin price, the more real the idea that bitcoin has value becomes. This is how money is born, by a shared belief.
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  He specifically says that Bitcoins value derives from perception. He further says that it’s value is largely derived from its “potential for circumvention”. The idea that random dude on the internet can call a Nobel Laureate & one of the most cited economists in history “ignorant” about these issues is hilarious.
  - cwkoss 9y ago
    I think Stiglitz is coming from the position that ALL 'circumvention' is a societal harm. He is working from a position which supports Federal govt first, and individuals second. Confiscating money from child pornographers is a pretty clear moral good. Civil asset forfeiture, the confiscating the cash a poor single-mom is taking to buy the car because "it could be drug money" is a pretty clear moral evil to me. Which one of those happens more often? I'd guess the later is 100-1000x more frequent. Bitcoin is not moral, it offers circumvention to all, for better or worse.
    - kasey_junk 9y ago
      Sure but his position isn’t “ignorant”. Quite the contrary he’s one of the worlds experts on it. Disagree all you want. But ignorance isn’t the issue.
      - cwkoss 9y ago
mtgx 9y ago
The rule seems to be "If tied to the banking industry in any way then cryptocurrency ignorance."

The ignorance stems from some sort of belief structure that allows one to believe that it would even be possible to outlaw bitcoin. Either bitcoin is valuable, or it is not. If it is, one should question why it is, and more importantly, why it is more valuable to people than the alternative. But rather than admit the problems of the alternative, he suggests something that is completely impractical (and downright sinister) because he would prefer not to discuss the reasons for its value in the first place.

kasey_junk 9y ago
So to state your hypothesis as a testable bet, your claim is that a government could not outlaw the possession, sale or purchase of Bitcoin. His claim is they could. If any government does this you’re the ignorant one? And if they try and fail he is?
- Frogolocalypse 9y ago
  No. We have historical precedent : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 The only thing it did was increase the value of gold. And our world is far far far more able to circumvent any order like this, as any wealthy person storing their money in panama will tell you. Bitcoin is the reckoning for that belief. Rather than discuss the reason for the failure of their fiat system, which is what they're discussing right now, they want to restrict your freedom of exchanging the fruits of your labor for tokens in a system outside of their control. Freedom isn't about you asking the the government what you can do. Freedom is about the government asking your permission to govern in the interests of their constituents. If they can't convince you to use their token, they should start working now to come to a resolution that respects the rights of the people who choose not to buy their token for anything other than taxes.
  - kasey_junk 9y ago
    A counter argument https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_dollar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_dollar
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      That isn't really a counter to any argument I'm making. If anything, it supports my argument. The government that supported that fiat ceased to exist, therefore the fiat ceased to exist. Sounds like a pretty good example of the dangers of fiat, and the advantages of a decentralized store of wealth.
      - kasey_junk 9y ago
        Owning a particular currency was made illegal by a government. That government enforced that policy by force of arms. That currency ceased to exist. Ergo it is not ignorant to claim that s government can eliminate a currency & quite the opposite it’s ignorant to say its impossible.
        Frogolocalypse 9y ago
        Making it illegal didn't make people not have it, just like the gold executive order, so that hasn't proven your case. Making the government cease to exist and therefore ceasing to be redeemable only proves my case.
        colordrops 9y ago
        They could eliminate it because it had a central point of control. There are over two hundred other countries and a black market that can't be stopped even if the US outlaws Bitcoin.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    What it also did was transfer a lot of gold from private individuals and corporations to the government.
- cwkoss 9y ago
  I think the testable bet is "If the US government outlawed possession of Bitcoin, the black market value of Bitcoin within the US would fall to $0"
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    Yeah. Just like drugs.
  - kasey_junk 9y ago
    That’s an exceptional bet. Would you suggest that someone who took the ‘yes’ side of that bet was ignorant simply for being on that side?
    - cwkoss 9y ago
      Maybe, I'd at least say they have limited knowledge of the history of prohibitions
      - kasey_junk 9y ago
        See I view it on the other side. Someone who has studied currencies that weren’t backed by nation states (or worse were actively worked against) would pretty easily find reason to take that bet. His entire position is that currencies are the domain of nation states. It’s a reasoned position, based on his long distinguished career.
        Frogolocalypse 9y ago
        Oh I get it. He doesn't understand how bitcoin works, and why would he? It is a very complex subject. Bitcoin is something very new, and all it took to make it work was the genius solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem unsolvability proof. Without that solution, decentralized crypto-currencies don't work. It is pure genius.

21 9y ago

An obvious form of ignorance is saying "bitcoin has no value", (maybe with the "intrinsic" word thrown in there), despite the manifest fact of a market price, and of a huge run up. Value is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder, and dismissing bitcoin, or CounterStrike skins, or World of Warcraft assets as valueless is ignorant. They can't see the simple "repetition becomes truth" driver of bitcoin price, as in the longer the price is not zero, and the longer people talk between themselfs about the bitcoin price, the more real the idea that bitcoin has value becomes. This is how money is born, by a shared belief.

kasey_junk 9y ago
He specifically says that Bitcoins value derives from perception. He further says that it’s value is largely derived from its “potential for circumvention”. The idea that random dude on the internet can call a Nobel Laureate & one of the most cited economists in history “ignorant” about these issues is hilarious.
- cwkoss 9y ago
  I think Stiglitz is coming from the position that ALL 'circumvention' is a societal harm. He is working from a position which supports Federal govt first, and individuals second. Confiscating money from child pornographers is a pretty clear moral good. Civil asset forfeiture, the confiscating the cash a poor single-mom is taking to buy the car because "it could be drug money" is a pretty clear moral evil to me. Which one of those happens more often? I'd guess the later is 100-1000x more frequent. Bitcoin is not moral, it offers circumvention to all, for better or worse.
  - kasey_junk 9y ago
    Sure but his position isn’t “ignorant”. Quite the contrary he’s one of the worlds experts on it. Disagree all you want. But ignorance isn’t the issue.
    - cwkoss 9y ago

mtgx 9y ago

The rule seems to be "If tied to the banking industry in any way then cryptocurrency ignorance."