6 ms·

I don't understand the dilemma. Nobody is forcing you to use bitcoin and it's still an incredibly small market in the grand scheme of things. The libertarian po

I don't understand the dilemma. Nobody is forcing you to use bitcoin and it's still an incredibly small market in the grand scheme of things. The libertarian position is (generally) that government mandated fiat currency is a tool of state oppression. No such force exists when it comes to bitcoin, and if people are unhappy with the concentration of bitcoin in the hands of a small number of people, they are free to use any other currency.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
What's the difference between a government manipulating a currency and a cabal of wealthy individuals manipulating a currency? Or is your problem mainly that businesses have to accept dollars?
- yock 9y ago
  It isn't illegal to circumvent the cabal by agreeing to use a different currency. The sole goal of currency is a common medium of exchange. If that common medium is being manipulated then the market will perceive that as damage and route around it.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >If that common medium is being manipulated then the market will perceive that as damage and route around it. Isn't that basically the problem with bitcoin though? We can't perceive if it's being manipulated or not. E: Actually that brings up another issue for me. Wouldn't that just be a run on the currency? So the last people to get out of manipu-coins are the ones stuck holding the bag?
    - yock 9y ago
      The currency is still just a medium of exchange. If the value crashes and some are left "holding the bag" as you say, then those left holding currency could still exchange with one another. No system promises that its actors will behave morally. What we're talking about is whether or not you fundamentally believe that government can and should exert force on the market. Those of us who believe they should not don't see a perfect and moral market on the other side, we just would prefer to exchange problems of force and authority with problems of interpersonal relationships.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        >No system promises that its actors will behave morally. Of course not, but government allows us to reach outside the system (in some cases) and set the rules for the system. Those rules can be used to help encourage more moral behavior and discourage less moral behavior. >Those of us who believe they should not don't see a perfect and moral market on the other side Okay but you can see how this language: >If that common medium is being manipulated then the market will perceive that as damage and route around it. does begin to imply a "perfect" market right? If something is manipulated then we just route around it. That phrasing seems to hide that the real cost in "routing around" a currency is that a lot of people lose all their money. >we just would prefer to exchange problems of force and authority with problems of interpersonal relationships. This wording seems to put force/authority and interpersonal relationships on opposite sides of the spectrum but that's obviously not true. Interpersonal relationships are one of the primary methods of using force and authority. Perhaps a more accurate representation of your views is that you would like force and authority to be only transmitted person to person?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- VMG 9y ago
  Anyone who has a miner can generate bitcoin. Only the FED can create new USD.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Sure, but what's the importance of that fact?
    - solotronics 9y ago
      that it's the first distributed open currency much like BitTorrent is a distributed open fileshare.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Are we still on the libertarian thing? I guess I don't understand why the fact that BTC creation is distributed is important.
    - VMG 9y ago
      I think the former method of creating currency is fairer and more transparent.
      - Nuzzerino 9y ago
        Is this how 250 kWh of energy usage per BTC transaction is supposed to be considered ethical?
        VMG 9y ago
        It is more ethical than financing wars through deficit spending. A on-chain bitcoin transaction allows an arbitrary number of off-chain transactions.
        rspeer 9y ago
        How many times are people going to try whataboutism on HN? Everyone can recognize it by now. The existence of war does not absolve you. If your standard of morality is "everything that's better than war is okay", you have approximately no morality.
- lancebeet 9y ago
  Government currency is mandated, bitcoin isn't. If bitcoin is manipulated, people can choose not to use it. If government currency is manipulated, people have no other (legal) choice but to continue using it. This makes the two distinct to a libertarian. Some libertarians may be more pragmatic than others. For example, some may argue that so long as a government issued fiat currency is in use (as it is today), manipulations by the government should be held to a minimum. This may be the cause of the confusion.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >If bitcoin is manipulated, people can choose not to use it. If government currency is manipulated, people have no other (legal) choice but to continue using it. Isn't this going to create a run on the currency? So say tomorrow some news comes out proving these btc whales are responsible for 80% of the order book and are manipulating the market, isn't it the slowest people to react who are stuck holding the bag? Furthermore, isn't the problem with btc that we don't know if it's being manipulated or not? Manipulation or not at least I know what's going on with the dollar.
    - lancebeet 9y ago
      I'm not a spokesperson for bitcoin and I'm neither qualified to nor interested in discussing its market risks or potentials. I don't believe these have any bearing on whether bitcoin is fundamentally distinct from government mandated fiat currency from a libertarian standpoint.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

What's the difference between a government manipulating a currency and a cabal of wealthy individuals manipulating a currency? Or is your problem mainly that businesses have to accept dollars?

yock 9y ago
It isn't illegal to circumvent the cabal by agreeing to use a different currency. The sole goal of currency is a common medium of exchange. If that common medium is being manipulated then the market will perceive that as damage and route around it.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >If that common medium is being manipulated then the market will perceive that as damage and route around it. Isn't that basically the problem with bitcoin though? We can't perceive if it's being manipulated or not. E: Actually that brings up another issue for me. Wouldn't that just be a run on the currency? So the last people to get out of manipu-coins are the ones stuck holding the bag?
  - yock 9y ago
    The currency is still just a medium of exchange. If the value crashes and some are left "holding the bag" as you say, then those left holding currency could still exchange with one another. No system promises that its actors will behave morally. What we're talking about is whether or not you fundamentally believe that government can and should exert force on the market. Those of us who believe they should not don't see a perfect and moral market on the other side, we just would prefer to exchange problems of force and authority with problems of interpersonal relationships.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >No system promises that its actors will behave morally. Of course not, but government allows us to reach outside the system (in some cases) and set the rules for the system. Those rules can be used to help encourage more moral behavior and discourage less moral behavior. >Those of us who believe they should not don't see a perfect and moral market on the other side Okay but you can see how this language: >If that common medium is being manipulated then the market will perceive that as damage and route around it. does begin to imply a "perfect" market right? If something is manipulated then we just route around it. That phrasing seems to hide that the real cost in "routing around" a currency is that a lot of people lose all their money. >we just would prefer to exchange problems of force and authority with problems of interpersonal relationships. This wording seems to put force/authority and interpersonal relationships on opposite sides of the spectrum but that's obviously not true. Interpersonal relationships are one of the primary methods of using force and authority. Perhaps a more accurate representation of your views is that you would like force and authority to be only transmitted person to person?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
VMG 9y ago
Anyone who has a miner can generate bitcoin. Only the FED can create new USD.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Sure, but what's the importance of that fact?
  - solotronics 9y ago
    that it's the first distributed open currency much like BitTorrent is a distributed open fileshare.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Are we still on the libertarian thing? I guess I don't understand why the fact that BTC creation is distributed is important.
  - VMG 9y ago
    I think the former method of creating currency is fairer and more transparent.
    - Nuzzerino 9y ago
      Is this how 250 kWh of energy usage per BTC transaction is supposed to be considered ethical?
      - VMG 9y ago
        It is more ethical than financing wars through deficit spending. A on-chain bitcoin transaction allows an arbitrary number of off-chain transactions.
        rspeer 9y ago
        How many times are people going to try whataboutism on HN? Everyone can recognize it by now. The existence of war does not absolve you. If your standard of morality is "everything that's better than war is okay", you have approximately no morality.
lancebeet 9y ago
Government currency is mandated, bitcoin isn't. If bitcoin is manipulated, people can choose not to use it. If government currency is manipulated, people have no other (legal) choice but to continue using it. This makes the two distinct to a libertarian. Some libertarians may be more pragmatic than others. For example, some may argue that so long as a government issued fiat currency is in use (as it is today), manipulations by the government should be held to a minimum. This may be the cause of the confusion.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >If bitcoin is manipulated, people can choose not to use it. If government currency is manipulated, people have no other (legal) choice but to continue using it. Isn't this going to create a run on the currency? So say tomorrow some news comes out proving these btc whales are responsible for 80% of the order book and are manipulating the market, isn't it the slowest people to react who are stuck holding the bag? Furthermore, isn't the problem with btc that we don't know if it's being manipulated or not? Manipulation or not at least I know what's going on with the dollar.
  - lancebeet 9y ago
    I'm not a spokesperson for bitcoin and I'm neither qualified to nor interested in discussing its market risks or potentials. I don't believe these have any bearing on whether bitcoin is fundamentally distinct from government mandated fiat currency from a libertarian standpoint.