4 ms·

Can't tell if serious but here's a reasonable way to think about things: In human civilization there are really two categories of things: Services for survival

Can't tell if serious but here's a reasonable way to think about things: In human civilization there are really two categories of things: Services for survival, services for comfort. Services for survival breed so much commerce: Food, Medical Research, Doctors, Medicine, etc. Suddenly you need to move the food; automotive. Suddenly you need to convince people to take chances (loans + big payout). Eventually when people have more than they need they would prefer to get comfort. This is obviously a very oversimplified view of humanity and economics, but the reality is that we're not just running around in circles. Bigger population #s breeds bigger logistical problems. Some see problems and inefficiencies and try to improve upon them. Etc. Seriously imagine getting rid of all these logistical services and supporting services, you wouldn't be able to feed, cloth, or heal a giant population well. We have examples, hell look at India and their structures. Look at Syria. BitCoin cannot become a currency. It is literally impossible. The ability to have many billions of transactions a day is a prerequisite for a currency. There can be no delays, no fees. Imagine if every time that I went to a store and paid a dollar for a pack of gum I also had to pay a fee associated. Note: Taxes are different, they are fees that go back into society, not a mechanism to profit off (save the corrupt government debate for later). Imagine if my friend asked for $20 I also had to pay a fee. Imagine if that also took like 1 week to process. Not practical. Cash (or currency) is important because otherwise I'd be trading raw beef for ipads because of what commodities I have. Now, not to say every industry is necessary. Call centers like you describe are a predatory commerce, but these things do happen, and hard to eliminate humans taking advantage of humans, it is in our nature. If it won't be call centers it'd be another thing.

csomar 9y ago
You seem to have a bias against bitcoin. I didn't mention bitcoin is becoming a global currency or even a currency. From my experience and entourage, most people involved in bitcoin are interested in doubling their money and not in changing the system. My point is: as the system sophisticated, we are turning more resources toward bullshit and fake employment rather than real issues. You can't find decent, healthy food in the city center (which is affordable and doesn't cost a fortune). You can't find reliable housing in the city center too. You can't find amenities in the suburbs. So you either pay too damn high rent or drive for longer hours. But you can't get to your location in time because we haven't been building reliable transportation or upgrading roads. Instead we are spending money on other stuff and to support countless counts of bureaucratic armies. This certainly differs from country to country. Some countries are more efficient. Some countries are a blackhole of public money and social workforce.
- virgilp 9y ago
  > You can't find decent, healthy food in the city center (which is affordable and doesn't cost a fortune). I'd say you can; we're spoiled like that, in that we take for granted that food should cost a fraction of our income. Historically speaking, the income was barely sufficient to cover food. What you're saying is that you can't find cheap sophisticated food and exotic items... yes, that's right, but you never could. We're improving on this, we're not getting worse... > You can't find reliable housing in the city center too. It's unclear what you mean by "reliable". For the right price, yes you can, most definitely. "The city center" is by definition a finite resource, so a limited number of people have access to it; if the city is very desirable, some people will always be outpriced (at least, for as long as we have a physical presence/ as long as the "limited number" constraint stays true). My point is: as the system sophisticated, we did solve a lot of issues (not all, but that's to be expected). Did the bullshit increase? Yes, but so did everything else. And I'd much rather see an increase in bullshit than in, say, war. "Panem et circenses" - you have to keep the people occupied so that they don't become troublemakers. If you can find a reliable way to transform a bullshit occupation into a productive occupation, I'm pretty sure you're going to get extremely rich. This is a hard problem - we're not doing it because we don't know how to do it any better than we currently are, not because we don't want to.
bmelton 9y ago
> Imagine if every time that I went to a store and paid a dollar for a pack of gum I also had to pay a fee associated. I agree that Bitcoin is unlikely to find utility as a usable currency, but this point rings extremely hollow, since buying a pack of gum with a credit card incurs a flat inquiry fee as well as a percentage of the sale, as does giving your friend $20. ATM transactions usually have fees associated as well. I agree with most of your other points, but there's a pretty wide gulf between trading beef for ipods and the maximal cash utility of cryptocurrencies, and there's space for a more transactional crypto with more reasonable fees and processing times to disrupt the 2.5% + $0.30 credit card industry.
- Nursie 9y ago
  >> since buying a pack of gum with a credit card I think the poster is talking about BTC as a currency there, not a payment method. When talking about it as a payment method, sure there are fees and processing times. But when just handing your friend $20, or buying gum with cash, not so much. Over here in Europe, FYI, most ATM transactions don't have fees (if you use one run by a bank anyway), and sending money to your friend by direct bank transfer is also free.
  - bmelton 9y ago
    A fair point, and worthwhile clarification. Thank you.
  - joncrocks 9y ago
    It's important to note that while you may not see a ATM fee, there is one inherent to running the network and machine. Typically the owner of the machine will charge the bank/network for the transaction. In the same way, when you transfer your money to your friend 'for free' using a direct bank transfer, it might be free to the user at the point of use, but it's being paid for somewhere, indirectly. When I pay for $20 of groceries with a credit/debit card, someone is paying a transaction fee somewhere. You don't see that as the end-user, although you may be aware of it. In a similar vein, consider that cash costs money to design, print, enforce anti-forgery, replace over time etc. All costs that have to be borne by the system that should be considered if you're going to compare 'giving your mate $20' vs. 'giving your mate some BTC'.
mgkimsal 9y ago
> There can be no delays, no fees We put up with fees based on mechanism, but (almost always) the seller pays. The cost of the fee is baked in to the price of what I'm buying.
wcarss 9y ago
Check out "Debt: The First 5000 Years", which puts forth decent reasoning that the "barter -> currency -> lending" path is not accurate but rather a bad post-hoc analysis of what we think might have happened that is based off of "what if modern society didn't have currency", as opposed to "how did real societies before currency look". From that basis, it suggests a likelier path of "local lending -> currency", i.e. that a straight up barter system never existed in ancient societies, and instead a notion of "who owes whom" was publicly known in small tribes and while those with the power to enact violence often had the ability to demand things somewhat disproportionately, most people did a good job of assessing what stuff to give, what people to give it to, and when to do so, as a moderate sized socialable semi-cooperative set of families with common interests might be capable of just... knowing. When tribes began trading things to each other at scales too large or untrustworthy to keep track of by memory, the simple innovation of writing it down in some form would often occur, which is the birth of currency, long after the notion of indebtedness, and other innovations of abstraction and regulation and such can build on top of that over time to create the modern concept. This doesn't really speak to your major point that a modern currency must support a large number of transactions/minute with low or no fees, which I agree with and agree Bitcoin seems (for now) ill-suited to handle; I've seen suggestions (on a paper linked on marginal revolution I think) that Bitcoin makes more sense as an asset to hold like gold or stock than it does as a currency, because its transaction fees, timing, and (for the moment) growth characteristics strongly incentivize not spending it. But what I was saying was that currency is not important because "without it we'd all be bartering", rather, it's important because "without it we would need to trust and know everyone we deal with every day well enough to track all our mutual indebtedness mentally", Which is plainly impossible in today's world! Currency needs to have few reasons to hold onto it rather than use it, and needs to be able to be exchanged quickly between any pair of actors regardless of external state. Cash is great for that, credit cards are getting there (me->business is good, business->business and business->me and me->you all much less so), and Bitcoin is a long, long way off. To tag some more weight into this very long post: my personal bet is that networks of micro-applicable cryptocurrencies (say, "Toronto Downtown Ethereum") in a network-system like Cosmo that settles debts across multiple blockchains quickly and efficiently will approach the use-case of cash, with the properties of local, highly scalable, and low-fee transactions. We'll all be using baskets of currencies all the time, basically, but with that fact abstracted for most people down to card or phone tap actions. Some professionals will still care which currencies, and how they operate, but they'll be a bit like forex traders are today. To make this prediction interesting, I give it a 15% chance at being reality somewhere within 3 years, a 50% chance in 5 years, 80% in 10 years, and 20% chance it takes longer than that or never happens because new technology/events make us skip/avoid it. (these averages obviously must accumulate the earlier cases within them where needed.)
imtringued 9y ago
It's true bitcoin cannot become a global currency. The core devs are employed by blockstream. Blockstream doesn't want bitcoin to succeed. They want to implement the LN because can profit off it more than from bitcoin. The Lightning network is independent from bitcoin any currency can implement it to support atomic swaps at which point it no longer matters which currency you use. Bitcoin cash is a fork of bitcoin because blockstream opposed the 2x blocksize increase which would have solved bitcoins current problems. Bitcoin cash has now a 8MB blocksize and can process significantly more transactions. Increasing the blocksize up to 1 Gigabyte is practical today which would result in a transaction rate in the order of of 7000 transactions per second. If we assume every human on the planet makes 50 transactions per day it would require terabyte blocks which are still feasable with current technology but it would cost roughly 26million per full node over 20 years. The expected fees of half a cent per transaction would be enough to fund at a minimum 300 of these nodes. The blockchain can scale. Bitcoin can't. It's 100% speculation until LN arrives but even then bitcoin might become irrelevant

csomar 9y ago

You seem to have a bias against bitcoin. I didn't mention bitcoin is becoming a global currency or even a currency. From my experience and entourage, most people involved in bitcoin are interested in doubling their money and not in changing the system. My point is: as the system sophisticated, we are turning more resources toward bullshit and fake employment rather than real issues. You can't find decent, healthy food in the city center (which is affordable and doesn't cost a fortune). You can't find reliable housing in the city center too. You can't find amenities in the suburbs. So you either pay too damn high rent or drive for longer hours. But you can't get to your location in time because we haven't been building reliable transportation or upgrading roads. Instead we are spending money on other stuff and to support countless counts of bureaucratic armies. This certainly differs from country to country. Some countries are more efficient. Some countries are a blackhole of public money and social workforce.

virgilp 9y ago
> You can't find decent, healthy food in the city center (which is affordable and doesn't cost a fortune). I'd say you can; we're spoiled like that, in that we take for granted that food should cost a fraction of our income. Historically speaking, the income was barely sufficient to cover food. What you're saying is that you can't find cheap sophisticated food and exotic items... yes, that's right, but you never could. We're improving on this, we're not getting worse... > You can't find reliable housing in the city center too. It's unclear what you mean by "reliable". For the right price, yes you can, most definitely. "The city center" is by definition a finite resource, so a limited number of people have access to it; if the city is very desirable, some people will always be outpriced (at least, for as long as we have a physical presence/ as long as the "limited number" constraint stays true). My point is: as the system sophisticated, we did solve a lot of issues (not all, but that's to be expected). Did the bullshit increase? Yes, but so did everything else. And I'd much rather see an increase in bullshit than in, say, war. "Panem et circenses" - you have to keep the people occupied so that they don't become troublemakers. If you can find a reliable way to transform a bullshit occupation into a productive occupation, I'm pretty sure you're going to get extremely rich. This is a hard problem - we're not doing it because we don't know how to do it any better than we currently are, not because we don't want to.

bmelton 9y ago

> Imagine if every time that I went to a store and paid a dollar for a pack of gum I also had to pay a fee associated. I agree that Bitcoin is unlikely to find utility as a usable currency, but this point rings extremely hollow, since buying a pack of gum with a credit card incurs a flat inquiry fee as well as a percentage of the sale, as does giving your friend $20. ATM transactions usually have fees associated as well. I agree with most of your other points, but there's a pretty wide gulf between trading beef for ipods and the maximal cash utility of cryptocurrencies, and there's space for a more transactional crypto with more reasonable fees and processing times to disrupt the 2.5% + $0.30 credit card industry.

Nursie 9y ago
>> since buying a pack of gum with a credit card I think the poster is talking about BTC as a currency there, not a payment method. When talking about it as a payment method, sure there are fees and processing times. But when just handing your friend $20, or buying gum with cash, not so much. Over here in Europe, FYI, most ATM transactions don't have fees (if you use one run by a bank anyway), and sending money to your friend by direct bank transfer is also free.
- bmelton 9y ago
  A fair point, and worthwhile clarification. Thank you.
- joncrocks 9y ago
  It's important to note that while you may not see a ATM fee, there is one inherent to running the network and machine. Typically the owner of the machine will charge the bank/network for the transaction. In the same way, when you transfer your money to your friend 'for free' using a direct bank transfer, it might be free to the user at the point of use, but it's being paid for somewhere, indirectly. When I pay for $20 of groceries with a credit/debit card, someone is paying a transaction fee somewhere. You don't see that as the end-user, although you may be aware of it. In a similar vein, consider that cash costs money to design, print, enforce anti-forgery, replace over time etc. All costs that have to be borne by the system that should be considered if you're going to compare 'giving your mate $20' vs. 'giving your mate some BTC'.

mgkimsal 9y ago

> There can be no delays, no fees We put up with fees based on mechanism, but (almost always) the seller pays. The cost of the fee is baked in to the price of what I'm buying.

wcarss 9y ago

Check out "Debt: The First 5000 Years", which puts forth decent reasoning that the "barter -> currency -> lending" path is not accurate but rather a bad post-hoc analysis of what we think might have happened that is based off of "what if modern society didn't have currency", as opposed to "how did real societies before currency look". From that basis, it suggests a likelier path of "local lending -> currency", i.e. that a straight up barter system never existed in ancient societies, and instead a notion of "who owes whom" was publicly known in small tribes and while those with the power to enact violence often had the ability to demand things somewhat disproportionately, most people did a good job of assessing what stuff to give, what people to give it to, and when to do so, as a moderate sized socialable semi-cooperative set of families with common interests might be capable of just... knowing. When tribes began trading things to each other at scales too large or untrustworthy to keep track of by memory, the simple innovation of writing it down in some form would often occur, which is the birth of currency, long after the notion of indebtedness, and other innovations of abstraction and regulation and such can build on top of that over time to create the modern concept. This doesn't really speak to your major point that a modern currency must support a large number of transactions/minute with low or no fees, which I agree with and agree Bitcoin seems (for now) ill-suited to handle; I've seen suggestions (on a paper linked on marginal revolution I think) that Bitcoin makes more sense as an asset to hold like gold or stock than it does as a currency, because its transaction fees, timing, and (for the moment) growth characteristics strongly incentivize not spending it. But what I was saying was that currency is not important because "without it we'd all be bartering", rather, it's important because "without it we would need to trust and know everyone we deal with every day well enough to track all our mutual indebtedness mentally", Which is plainly impossible in today's world! Currency needs to have few reasons to hold onto it rather than use it, and needs to be able to be exchanged quickly between any pair of actors regardless of external state. Cash is great for that, credit cards are getting there (me->business is good, business->business and business->me and me->you all much less so), and Bitcoin is a long, long way off. To tag some more weight into this very long post: my personal bet is that networks of micro-applicable cryptocurrencies (say, "Toronto Downtown Ethereum") in a network-system like Cosmo that settles debts across multiple blockchains quickly and efficiently will approach the use-case of cash, with the properties of local, highly scalable, and low-fee transactions. We'll all be using baskets of currencies all the time, basically, but with that fact abstracted for most people down to card or phone tap actions. Some professionals will still care which currencies, and how they operate, but they'll be a bit like forex traders are today. To make this prediction interesting, I give it a 15% chance at being reality somewhere within 3 years, a 50% chance in 5 years, 80% in 10 years, and 20% chance it takes longer than that or never happens because new technology/events make us skip/avoid it. (these averages obviously must accumulate the earlier cases within them where needed.)

imtringued 9y ago

It's true bitcoin cannot become a global currency. The core devs are employed by blockstream. Blockstream doesn't want bitcoin to succeed. They want to implement the LN because can profit off it more than from bitcoin. The Lightning network is independent from bitcoin any currency can implement it to support atomic swaps at which point it no longer matters which currency you use. Bitcoin cash is a fork of bitcoin because blockstream opposed the 2x blocksize increase which would have solved bitcoins current problems. Bitcoin cash has now a 8MB blocksize and can process significantly more transactions. Increasing the blocksize up to 1 Gigabyte is practical today which would result in a transaction rate in the order of of 7000 transactions per second. If we assume every human on the planet makes 50 transactions per day it would require terabyte blocks which are still feasable with current technology but it would cost roughly 26million per full node over 20 years. The expected fees of half a cent per transaction would be enough to fund at a minimum 300 of these nodes. The blockchain can scale. Bitcoin can't. It's 100% speculation until LN arrives but even then bitcoin might become irrelevant