4 ms·

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 y

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
    When you begin your argument with a claim that is factually incorrect there is no need to read further to know that the argument is invalid.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      So. You didn't read it. Proudly. And it IS factually correct in that there was state-maintained fiat currency at the genesis of nearly every story, we just both agree it doesn't matter that much. Consider how uninteresting this exchange is, and how much of our collective time you've wasted by not reading the entire post. You've spent MUCH more time talking with me (and I with you) than if you had JUST READ THE POST.
      - lisper 9y ago
        > You didn't read it. Whether I read it or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that you opened your argument with a demonstrably false claim. > And it IS factually correct in that there was state-maintained fiat currency at the genesis of nearly every story That may be, but that's not what you said, nor is it what I disputed. > Consider how uninteresting this exchange is I dunno, I think it's kind of fascinating the lengths some people will go to to avoid saying something as simple as, "You're right, I phrased that badly. What I meant to say was..."
- chrischen 9y ago
  Point is that the distribution of bitcoin wealth is wholly dependent on distribution of fiat currency wealth.
  - lisper 9y ago
    But that's false. You always need some capital to make an investment in anything, but anyone with the foresight to recognize bitcoin's potential back in 2010 could mine and/or buy coins essentially for nothing.

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
  When you begin your argument with a claim that is factually incorrect there is no need to read further to know that the argument is invalid.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    So. You didn't read it. Proudly. And it IS factually correct in that there was state-maintained fiat currency at the genesis of nearly every story, we just both agree it doesn't matter that much. Consider how uninteresting this exchange is, and how much of our collective time you've wasted by not reading the entire post. You've spent MUCH more time talking with me (and I with you) than if you had JUST READ THE POST.
    - lisper 9y ago
      > You didn't read it. Whether I read it or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that you opened your argument with a demonstrably false claim. > And it IS factually correct in that there was state-maintained fiat currency at the genesis of nearly every story That may be, but that's not what you said, nor is it what I disputed. > Consider how uninteresting this exchange is I dunno, I think it's kind of fascinating the lengths some people will go to to avoid saying something as simple as, "You're right, I phrased that badly. What I meant to say was..."
chrischen 9y ago
Point is that the distribution of bitcoin wealth is wholly dependent on distribution of fiat currency wealth.
- lisper 9y ago
  But that's false. You always need some capital to make an investment in anything, but anyone with the foresight to recognize bitcoin's potential back in 2010 could mine and/or buy coins essentially for nothing.