5 ms·

> The libertarian position on wealth inequality is that as long as the distribution of wealth was determined voluntarily (without state privilege, in particular

> The libertarian position on wealth inequality is that as long as the distribution of wealth was determined voluntarily (without state privilege, in particular), then there is no problem. Buuuuut, they bought it with fiat currencies, in many cases USD. So... right there the entire idea breaks down. Still, maybe that's unfair. A valid criticism of this argument is that it's a variant of the the serf comic argument (or genetic fallacy) in which those embedded in a bad system may not question it because they benefit from it. The real problem from a libertarian perspective is that bitcoin (and really all PoW blockcahins) just encodes how a new State, a plutocratic one based around processing power and energy availability, is formed. This is in a very literal sense what bitcoin encodes, with the miners being the only folks with any real votes (in that if miners as a group refused to mine other currencies and actively discourage others from doing so, other currencies cannot scale and are locked out). Not that bitcoin is scaling all that well. Or eth for that matter. As we've seen from recent research, Bitcoin is slightly better than existing systems at discouraging monopolies (because even accidental misuse could crash the currency), but I seriously doubt a mining duopoly dictating most of the future of bitcoin is something that any libertarian actually calls a positive outcome, other than a snarky nod to damaging existing states. The long term evolution of the system is pivotal on some new, non-PoW scheme. PoS is the major contender right now. There might be other methods as derivations (e.g., PoW coupled with physical location, PoS with term limits, PoS with accreditation, etc). Non-PoW systems will also scale much more effectively than PoW systems, as well.

lisper 9y ago
> they bought it with fiat currencies No. Some people bought it with fiat currencies. Others mined for it. Still others exchanged goods and services for it.
- ballenf 9y ago
  And some were gifted it. I remember a handful of sites that would give you some BTC just for asking as a demonstration of the technology. It was worth roughly a cent or two at the time -- obviously much more now if held.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  The number of people who mined for it without using fiat currencies to buy the hardware and energy is, I submit, such an astronomically small value I'd demand you prove to me it exists at all. They might exist, but I suspect their stories are singular. > Still others exchanged goods and services for it. I'm not sure what your point is here. It's not difficult to imagine existing state currencies influence these processes. I've also pointed out it's not a very good argument for either side of the libertarian fence. But hey, let's focus on minutiae as opposed to the larger ethical and social questions surrounding bitcoin and derivatives. That seems like a rad use of time.
  - lisper 9y ago
    > using fiat currencies to buy the hardware and energy The process had to be bootstrapped somehow. And given that the world's economy at the time bitcoin was invented ran on fiat currency, it's not surprising that fiat currency was used to help bootstrap the process. > I'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that your original claim: > Buuuuut, they bought it with fiat currencies, in many cases USD. So... right there the entire idea breaks down. is false. Just because the process was bootstrapped with fiat currency does not imply that "the entire idea breaks down."
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      Did you read a sentence that you disagreed with and then immediately refused to finish the paragraph? > A valid criticism of this argument is that it's a variant of the the serf comic argument (or genetic fallacy) in which those embedded in a bad system may not question it because they benefit from it. I'm just saying, the idea that there is in fact an equitable pre-distribution of agency and power to draw from is fallacious. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try and create better systems; just that we shouldn't pretend such a thing existed.
      - lisper 9y ago

lisper 9y ago

> they bought it with fiat currencies No. Some people bought it with fiat currencies. Others mined for it. Still others exchanged goods and services for it.

ballenf 9y ago
And some were gifted it. I remember a handful of sites that would give you some BTC just for asking as a demonstration of the technology. It was worth roughly a cent or two at the time -- obviously much more now if held.
KirinDave 9y ago
The number of people who mined for it without using fiat currencies to buy the hardware and energy is, I submit, such an astronomically small value I'd demand you prove to me it exists at all. They might exist, but I suspect their stories are singular. > Still others exchanged goods and services for it. I'm not sure what your point is here. It's not difficult to imagine existing state currencies influence these processes. I've also pointed out it's not a very good argument for either side of the libertarian fence. But hey, let's focus on minutiae as opposed to the larger ethical and social questions surrounding bitcoin and derivatives. That seems like a rad use of time.
- lisper 9y ago
  > using fiat currencies to buy the hardware and energy The process had to be bootstrapped somehow. And given that the world's economy at the time bitcoin was invented ran on fiat currency, it's not surprising that fiat currency was used to help bootstrap the process. > I'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that your original claim: > Buuuuut, they bought it with fiat currencies, in many cases USD. So... right there the entire idea breaks down. is false. Just because the process was bootstrapped with fiat currency does not imply that "the entire idea breaks down."
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Did you read a sentence that you disagreed with and then immediately refused to finish the paragraph? > A valid criticism of this argument is that it's a variant of the the serf comic argument (or genetic fallacy) in which those embedded in a bad system may not question it because they benefit from it. I'm just saying, the idea that there is in fact an equitable pre-distribution of agency and power to draw from is fallacious. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try and create better systems; just that we shouldn't pretend such a thing existed.
    - lisper 9y ago