6 ms·

Real US Dollars have a very large arsenal with unimaginable destructive powers propping up their value. The dollars may be fake but the man with the gun who is

by Donzo 8y ago

Real US Dollars have a very large arsenal with unimaginable destructive powers propping up their value. The dollars may be fake but the man with the gun who is standing behind them is very real.

spiorf 8y ago
This is the internet, and those weapons can't fire down here. Try, instead, to delete a two week old transaction from the bitcoin blockchain. You will find that even with military-sized funding, you can't. That's what is backing up bitcoin's value
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  You do not live on the Internet, you live in physical reality. Very much in reach of the police. Or a cruise missile.
- sethrin 8y ago
  Why is that valuable?
- Retric 8y ago
  I can't exactly delete a physical transaction with real money, so that provides zero new benefit.
  - grosjona 8y ago
    The Fed can inflate away the value of those transactions anytime they want and not only do you have zero control over this process, it is not even possible to predict it. The complexity of the financial instruments used by the Fed is intentional and serves to obscure the fact that they are essentially giving free money to large banks and corporations. Corporations are not getting bigger because they're more efficient at delivering value to consumers - They're getting bigger because the Fed makes sure of it. The Fed is like a river; those who are closest to the source can get the most out of it. In this case it means bankers, financiers and corporations. Regular workers are far downstream, they get whatever is left.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      Which is why the US dollar is always falling compared to other currencies? Deflating currencies are terrible things for economies
      - grosjona 8y ago
        People can create new cryptocurrencies to increase the total cryptocurrency money supply.
    - the_gastropod 8y ago
      > The Fed can inflate away the value of those transactions anytime they want and not only do you have zero control over this process, it is not even possible to predict it. Be real. Between USD and BTC, one has lost 70% of its value over the past ~7 months.
      - sincerely 8y ago
        You're not wrong but you're also choosing a specific time frame that makes your point sound stronger than it might necessarily be. I could do something similar: >BTC is worth the same as it was in November 2017 >Between USD and BTC, one has increased ~150% in value over the last year >Between USD and BTC, only one is worth ten times as much now as it was worth two years ago At the end of the day I am pretty sure I agree with the point you're trying to make (USD is a lot more stable/predictable/reliable than BTC even taking into consideration inflation) but you shouldn't use arguments that someone who disagrees with you could easily attack.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- gus_massa 8y ago
  The ETH/ETC fork essentially reversed a month old transaction. It's not Bitcoin, but they still have a 1/2 marketcap. If the value comes from irreversibility, their marketcap should be almost 0. [Moreover, ETC is the irreversible chain and the value is 1/30 of the value of ETH.]
  - RexetBlell 8y ago
    First of all, both ETH and ETC are irreversible. If someone tried to reverse something on the ETH or ETC chain, there would be another fork and there would be 3 Ethereum chains. Also, the ETH/ETC fork did not technically reverse anything. The fork allowed the inclusion of an "irregular" transaction that moved funds from the DAO account to a "Withdraw" account.
    - gus_massa 8y ago
      I know, but why I useful an immutable log if nobody looks at it? They used a magic fork to create the irregular transaction. They could have removed the original transaction and use the magic to declare the intermediate has valid. (I've seen this "solution" in discussions about what to do if someone puts illegal content in the blockchain.)
- NicoJuicy 8y ago
  But centralisation makes it safer, all quirks aside
- ethbro 8y ago
  At USD$6.5B for a 51% attack (scraped off a website)... ... that's a smidge over 1% of the US military budget.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Doesn't mean it's easy to get approval to spend that "smidge" on an attack.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      "smidge over 1%" It's not easy, but it's not impossible (to parent's bombastic assertion). I believe the Manhattan project spent something like 0.55% of the US military budget (against ~2013USD$900b yearly budgets, which seemed the peak in 1942-45). http://www.dictionary.com/browse/smidge http://www.dictionary.com/browse/smidge
      - SilasX 8y ago
        Because it had hard-won political approval; a bitcoin attack would face similar barriers. And I know what smidge means, I was expressing ire at your attempt to sound folksy.
        ethbro 8y ago
        Fwiw, I'm actually pretty folksy.
  - spiorf 8y ago
    51% lets you censor transactions. You need more than that to reverse a week old tx. Way more. You have to outrun the rest of the world and gain a week of advantage. So if you have 90% of the hashrate, you go 9 times faster than the honest miners. Every day, you can erase 9 days of blockchain. But that 90% means that you build a mining farm that is 9 times greater that the current hashrate. Redo the math on the costs and logistics of that.
- hcknwscommenter 8y ago
  "Try, instead, to delete a two week old transaction from the bitcoin blockchain." So that is literally true, but is it really true from a pragmatic sense? If the US government used their military might to destroy a significant portion of large mining installations, would bitcoin really be in any way resistant to that? If the NSA and DOE used their combined supercomputing power to outhash everyone else, couldn't they take over the bitcoin network and do whatever the heck they want with it?
  - mr_spothawk 8y ago
    the same is literally true for a nuclear-armed opponent and the dollar. piles of cash would still exist in bunkers and wallets around the world, and would retain some value. a more interesting evaluative plot-element might be something like: how many developers would need to die for bitcoin to be exterminated? vs. how many economists would need to die for the dollar to be exterminated? frankly, if some gov wanted digital coins (or their supporting networks) destroyed... I think it would be easier than reducing a traditional, national currency to rubble.
- fatjokes 8y ago
  Heh, reminds me of the time Anonymous tried to fight the Mexican drug cartels, thinking "this is the internet, and those weapons can't fire down here." The cartels found one poster in a local internet cafe. They did their cartel thing. I didn't hear any more about that fight.
  - bena 8y ago
    Something everyone forgets. If you can reach something, that something can reach you.
- Donzo 8y ago
  Why are you interpreting my comment as somehow anti-btc? Everything isn't binary.
- joejerryronnie 8y ago
  If the world's financial stability is at risk due to crypto-currency, you will see how easy it is for the government to effectively shut down the internet. What good is the bitcoin blockchain when all ISPs have been locked down and the only internet traffic is going directly through military run equipment?
  - spiorf 8y ago
    It would be an economic suicide for the first country that decides to disconnect itself from the internet. Or do you think that for the first time in history of mankind, every single government will come together against bitcoin? Besides, there are satellites beaming down bitcoin transactions, so...
    - joejerryronnie 8y ago
      I'm talking about the scenario where cryptocurrency is already threatening to destabilize the world financial system. And it's trivial for the world's governments to shut down all the satellites that might transmit bitcoin transactions. Now if a small group of people could figure out how to launch swarms of rogue satellites quicker than the gov could shut them down, that could be a way to keep crypto going.
grosjona 8y ago
You're forgetting about the army of hackers who are propping up the value of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Why own weapons when you can control the people who own them? As our software systems get more complex and as we become more reliant on them, hackers become increasingly influential politically and economically. Lawyers, doctors and financiers have had thousands of years to figure out how to gain unfair zero-sum leverage within capitalism, software engineers, on the other hand, didn't exist until recently but it's only a matter of time before they group together and get their leverage.
- mr_spothawk 8y ago
  > only a matter of time before they group together and get their leverage it's already done. see, for instance: - the impact of digital campaign outreach in the 2008 election - various 3letter "cyber" groupos since early 2000s - anonymous circa 3 years ago - btc manipulation last year there are probably more

by Donzo 8y ago

Real US Dollars have a very large arsenal with unimaginable destructive powers propping up their value. The dollars may be fake but the man with the gun who is standing behind them is very real.

spiorf 8y ago

This is the internet, and those weapons can't fire down here. Try, instead, to delete a two week old transaction from the bitcoin blockchain. You will find that even with military-sized funding, you can't. That's what is backing up bitcoin's value

TeMPOraL 8y ago
You do not live on the Internet, you live in physical reality. Very much in reach of the police. Or a cruise missile.
sethrin 8y ago
Why is that valuable?
Retric 8y ago
I can't exactly delete a physical transaction with real money, so that provides zero new benefit.
- grosjona 8y ago
  The Fed can inflate away the value of those transactions anytime they want and not only do you have zero control over this process, it is not even possible to predict it. The complexity of the financial instruments used by the Fed is intentional and serves to obscure the fact that they are essentially giving free money to large banks and corporations. Corporations are not getting bigger because they're more efficient at delivering value to consumers - They're getting bigger because the Fed makes sure of it. The Fed is like a river; those who are closest to the source can get the most out of it. In this case it means bankers, financiers and corporations. Regular workers are far downstream, they get whatever is left.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Which is why the US dollar is always falling compared to other currencies? Deflating currencies are terrible things for economies
    - grosjona 8y ago
      People can create new cryptocurrencies to increase the total cryptocurrency money supply.
  - the_gastropod 8y ago
    > The Fed can inflate away the value of those transactions anytime they want and not only do you have zero control over this process, it is not even possible to predict it. Be real. Between USD and BTC, one has lost 70% of its value over the past ~7 months.
    - sincerely 8y ago
      You're not wrong but you're also choosing a specific time frame that makes your point sound stronger than it might necessarily be. I could do something similar: >BTC is worth the same as it was in November 2017 >Between USD and BTC, one has increased ~150% in value over the last year >Between USD and BTC, only one is worth ten times as much now as it was worth two years ago At the end of the day I am pretty sure I agree with the point you're trying to make (USD is a lot more stable/predictable/reliable than BTC even taking into consideration inflation) but you shouldn't use arguments that someone who disagrees with you could easily attack.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
gus_massa 8y ago
The ETH/ETC fork essentially reversed a month old transaction. It's not Bitcoin, but they still have a 1/2 marketcap. If the value comes from irreversibility, their marketcap should be almost 0. [Moreover, ETC is the irreversible chain and the value is 1/30 of the value of ETH.]
- RexetBlell 8y ago
  First of all, both ETH and ETC are irreversible. If someone tried to reverse something on the ETH or ETC chain, there would be another fork and there would be 3 Ethereum chains. Also, the ETH/ETC fork did not technically reverse anything. The fork allowed the inclusion of an "irregular" transaction that moved funds from the DAO account to a "Withdraw" account.
  - gus_massa 8y ago
    I know, but why I useful an immutable log if nobody looks at it? They used a magic fork to create the irregular transaction. They could have removed the original transaction and use the magic to declare the intermediate has valid. (I've seen this "solution" in discussions about what to do if someone puts illegal content in the blockchain.)
NicoJuicy 8y ago
But centralisation makes it safer, all quirks aside
ethbro 8y ago
At USD$6.5B for a 51% attack (scraped off a website)... ... that's a smidge over 1% of the US military budget.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Doesn't mean it's easy to get approval to spend that "smidge" on an attack.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    "smidge over 1%" It's not easy, but it's not impossible (to parent's bombastic assertion). I believe the Manhattan project spent something like 0.55% of the US military budget (against ~2013USD$900b yearly budgets, which seemed the peak in 1942-45). http://www.dictionary.com/browse/smidge http://www.dictionary.com/browse/smidge
    - SilasX 8y ago
      Because it had hard-won political approval; a bitcoin attack would face similar barriers. And I know what smidge means, I was expressing ire at your attempt to sound folksy.
      - ethbro 8y ago
        Fwiw, I'm actually pretty folksy.
- spiorf 8y ago
  51% lets you censor transactions. You need more than that to reverse a week old tx. Way more. You have to outrun the rest of the world and gain a week of advantage. So if you have 90% of the hashrate, you go 9 times faster than the honest miners. Every day, you can erase 9 days of blockchain. But that 90% means that you build a mining farm that is 9 times greater that the current hashrate. Redo the math on the costs and logistics of that.
hcknwscommenter 8y ago
"Try, instead, to delete a two week old transaction from the bitcoin blockchain." So that is literally true, but is it really true from a pragmatic sense? If the US government used their military might to destroy a significant portion of large mining installations, would bitcoin really be in any way resistant to that? If the NSA and DOE used their combined supercomputing power to outhash everyone else, couldn't they take over the bitcoin network and do whatever the heck they want with it?
- mr_spothawk 8y ago
  the same is literally true for a nuclear-armed opponent and the dollar. piles of cash would still exist in bunkers and wallets around the world, and would retain some value. a more interesting evaluative plot-element might be something like: how many developers would need to die for bitcoin to be exterminated? vs. how many economists would need to die for the dollar to be exterminated? frankly, if some gov wanted digital coins (or their supporting networks) destroyed... I think it would be easier than reducing a traditional, national currency to rubble.
fatjokes 8y ago
Heh, reminds me of the time Anonymous tried to fight the Mexican drug cartels, thinking "this is the internet, and those weapons can't fire down here." The cartels found one poster in a local internet cafe. They did their cartel thing. I didn't hear any more about that fight.
- bena 8y ago
  Something everyone forgets. If you can reach something, that something can reach you.
Donzo 8y ago
Why are you interpreting my comment as somehow anti-btc? Everything isn't binary.
joejerryronnie 8y ago
If the world's financial stability is at risk due to crypto-currency, you will see how easy it is for the government to effectively shut down the internet. What good is the bitcoin blockchain when all ISPs have been locked down and the only internet traffic is going directly through military run equipment?
- spiorf 8y ago
  It would be an economic suicide for the first country that decides to disconnect itself from the internet. Or do you think that for the first time in history of mankind, every single government will come together against bitcoin? Besides, there are satellites beaming down bitcoin transactions, so...
  - joejerryronnie 8y ago
    I'm talking about the scenario where cryptocurrency is already threatening to destabilize the world financial system. And it's trivial for the world's governments to shut down all the satellites that might transmit bitcoin transactions. Now if a small group of people could figure out how to launch swarms of rogue satellites quicker than the gov could shut them down, that could be a way to keep crypto going.

grosjona 8y ago

You're forgetting about the army of hackers who are propping up the value of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Why own weapons when you can control the people who own them? As our software systems get more complex and as we become more reliant on them, hackers become increasingly influential politically and economically. Lawyers, doctors and financiers have had thousands of years to figure out how to gain unfair zero-sum leverage within capitalism, software engineers, on the other hand, didn't exist until recently but it's only a matter of time before they group together and get their leverage.

mr_spothawk 8y ago
> only a matter of time before they group together and get their leverage it's already done. see, for instance: - the impact of digital campaign outreach in the 2008 election - various 3letter "cyber" groupos since early 2000s - anonymous circa 3 years ago - btc manipulation last year there are probably more