9 ms·

As a "bitcoin fanboi," I never claimed to not want the rule of law. I just don't want some unaccountable third party mucking about with the monetary policy of t

As a "bitcoin fanboi," I never claimed to not want the rule of law. I just don't want some unaccountable third party mucking about with the monetary policy of the currency I'm using. If anything, I'd like _more_ rule of law when it comes to holding central banks accountable when they fuck up.

kevingadd 8y ago
How do you avoid unaccountable third parties in a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin? Isn't policy currently being set, in practice, by a mix of the major miners (many behind the Chinese Great Firewall) and core developers, none of whom were elected or are accountable to you in any way? Hell, one of the people with influence over Bitcoin is just some rando who started a popular forum.
- close04 8y ago
  People will fight the government with all their might for trying to put in regulation and policy for as long as their own "good fortune" lasts. They think it's natural and possibly a consequence of their own individual abilities. People will fight the government with all their might for not trying to put in regulations and policy when their own "good fortune" ends. They think it was bound to happen and possibly a consequence of the government's inability. Most people are more like children than they'd like to admit. The evidence is there but they lack the willingness to understand it. They will fight you with all their might but when it does come tumbling down on them they will blame the parents for not doing more since they knew better.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- plankers 8y ago
  Being able to review the code yourself is helpful, and being able to contribute to the code yourself is even better. It may not be perfect, but it's certainly a step up from bankers setting policy in their ivory towers, in my opinion. Changes to the bitcoin source code, as a rule, only happen when the development community has reached a reasonable consensus after public discussion. Then it's left to miners to implement this "policy" by running the software that developers release. Granted, not all bitcoin clients are run in this fashion, but you mention the core developers, who are held accountable to the community by their reputations. There's something greatly liberating about being able to talk to the policy setters on IRC and have them treat you like any other person, rather than part of the rabble.
roenxi 8y ago
Or even if it was a little bit of fairness in how the QE is distributed. For better or worse, America is the leading example of capitalism in practice. It undermines the whole brand of capitalism when they hand out 4 trillion to the banks then call it a day. Where does the integrity of the system come in to the debate? That sort of thing was meant to be a hallmark of the communists, not first world nations.
- close04 8y ago
  No, unfortunately it's perfectly capitalist. Because the premise of capitalism [1] is (extremely simplified) "help the capital holder because they will have more power to help the others". If an employer does better he will hire more people so more well being. Another basic capitalist concept is that politics should not influence capital but capital should influence politics. That's because who would know better how to make money and what's best: money makers or politicians? The idea is political interest can turn into unwise economic moves, but capitalist interest will always turn into wise economic moves. Why do you think lobbying isn't considered corruption? Because it's expected that politics needs a hand from business to make the right call. In practice this turns out how you see it today. The premise was solid, the implementation not so much. In communism state dictates and the business is at its mercy. In capitalism capital dictates and the state is at its mercy. See the QE as quieting up an unruly child by giving him what he wants. What else can you do, get another child? Sink your economy? It's still your own people you hurt in the end. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
  - vignesh_m 8y ago
    Idk why you're being downvoted when you're right. I guess people are incorrectly thinking you support this behaviour instead of simply stating how it is capitalist.
    - close04 8y ago
      People rarely take the time to understand what you're trying to say these days. They're also very misinformed and take it personally when they think you're attacking their "core values". In this case I think it's because I was highlighting some downsides of the practical implementation of capitalism. Or maybe criticizing anything related to capitalism makes me a communist? Who knows... Very few people actually understand what capitalism or communism are or what they were supposed to be, beyond what quick consumption TV or internet media tells them. Also very few people accept to change their opinions as the facts change. They'd rather fight it. Good for them I guess... some things really are bliss.
msiyer 8y ago
Central banks can never be held accountable for anything. In most cases, they cannot even be audited.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > In most cases, they cannot even be audited Central banks are audited to a borderline-silly level of redundancy in every major trading economy (i.e. the U.S., EU, Japan, UK, Canada and Switzerland).
  - msiyer 8y ago
    The audit is a joke. Just hogwash. What exactly happens if wrongdoings are unearthed? What happens when taxpayers' money is found lost? Nothing. Pentagon eats up trillions and no one has a clue. Trillions paid out in bank bailouts and no one questions. Billionaires take loans and declare bankruptcy... Audits performed by those who are involved in the crime is hogwash.
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>I just don’t want some unaccountable third party mucking about with the monetary policy of the currency I'm using. How do you justify that despite the blockchain being decentralized - that at any time, a dozen different people could immediately or long term ruin or muck with bitcoin’s policies and directions? I’ll also at this time point out it’s a commodity in effect, not a currency really, but different topic. Your argument seems to be the idealized “it’s open and no one owns it man” and not the reality that the only part that’s “free” is the mathy database part.
- plankers 8y ago
  Eh, it's not as easy to influence the policies and direction of bitcoin's core client as you might think. It requires consensus building, which is nowhere near as easy as enforcing consensus on the state of the blockchain. It's a messy process, involving much debate and hashing out (pun intended) of details. See here[1] for more. If it is a commodity, then it's one that's awfully easy to spend on whatever random bullshit I come across on the internet. [1]https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/ https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/
  - lozenge 8y ago
    It takes a concerted effort but it's definitely possible, especially by those who moderate forums and subreddits. Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin were all successful in doing so, although they each only captured part of the original Bitcoin market cap.
    - plankers 8y ago
      You seem to be confusing the moderation of non-technical forums with the process of achieving consensus between experts on highly technical issues. My apologies if this isn't the case. The bitcoin forks you name have experts working on their development, true. But these developers represent a small fraction of the number of contributors to the bitcoin core client. As the number of people increases, so too does the difficulty of coming to consensus on the direction of development.
FabHK 8y ago
> when they fuck up Most central banks in developed countries have delivered reasonable moderate inflation over decades. Also, in most developed countries you're free to hold other (fiat) currencies or real assets. Of course, some countries have huge problems, but if they introduce capital controls, they are just as likely to prohibit you from holding Bitcoin as from holding other currencies. I still don't see what problem cryptocurrencies are solving here.
- plankers 8y ago
  They solve the problem of getting money past Venezuela's currency controls at the border, assuming you can find somebody in the country who will accept it. That's not a small if, but it does represent an alternative that would not exist without cryptocurrencies. But I'm talking more about when central banks fail to react to crises, sometimes only acting months or years after action could be taken to prevent some of the worst aspects of these crashes. Plus the current pervasive distortion of markets due to quantitative easing (and now, the inverse) is seriously fucking with how we value companies. The P/E ratio of most large tech companies is absolutely crazeballs bonkers and we have monetary policy, in part, to thank for that. As for inflation, the U.S. Federal Reserve can't seem to figure out why inflation is as low as it is with unemployment this low. They just don't know!
  - Retric 8y ago
    Electric transfers can occur anywhere, so again what exactly does bitcoin bring to the table?
- jkabrg 8y ago
  Just because something is OK -- and has been OK for a hundred years -- doesn't mean it isn't also massively brittle (not that I'm saying it is). You're committing the fallacy of induction when talking about economics. Dangerous move.
rednerrus 8y ago
Bitfinexed would like to have a word with you. If Bitfinexs wash trading or printing Tether as fast as they can to prop up the value of BTC isn’t mucking about in the currency you’re using, I don’t know what is.
- plankers 8y ago
  Solid point, but I'd prefer a permissionless system where any actor is able to have a voice in the direction of policy to a walled garden where wealth appears to be a prerequisite for membership. Any permissionless system must allow maliciously self-interested actors to act as they please, so long as the underlying soundness of the currency is not affected. The mass printing of tether has no effect on the usefulness of bitcoin as a transaction medium, just a temporary effect on its usefulness as a store of value (and personally, the value of bitcoin seems to be doing just fine). I'm still able to transfer bitcoin from my personal device anywhere in the world in seconds (at 0 confirmations, about an hour for the recommended 6), as opposed to waiting days for an ACH or wire transfer to clear. Anyway, bad actors are the reason that we need the rule of law in this space. If Bitfinex is as shady as is claimed, they won't be able to get away with their schemes indefinitely.
knorker 8y ago
Don't confuse you not agreeing with decision with authorities not being accountable. And if you think unregulated exchanges aren't mucking with the market then I have a bridge to sell you. Bitcoin is deliberately unaccountable. Someone did something we all agree should not be done? That sucks, we decided to mathematically prevent preventions of that. And remind me, what happened to Ethereum to create Ethereum Classic? And apparently they are going to (or have already) done it again! It's capitalism for the poor, communism for the rich all over again. And if you think central banks are unaccountable then why haven't they literally stolen all the money? With Bitcoin everything that can be stolen is. Central banks don't literally have armies.

kevingadd 8y ago

How do you avoid unaccountable third parties in a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin? Isn't policy currently being set, in practice, by a mix of the major miners (many behind the Chinese Great Firewall) and core developers, none of whom were elected or are accountable to you in any way? Hell, one of the people with influence over Bitcoin is just some rando who started a popular forum.

close04 8y ago
People will fight the government with all their might for trying to put in regulation and policy for as long as their own "good fortune" lasts. They think it's natural and possibly a consequence of their own individual abilities. People will fight the government with all their might for not trying to put in regulations and policy when their own "good fortune" ends. They think it was bound to happen and possibly a consequence of the government's inability. Most people are more like children than they'd like to admit. The evidence is there but they lack the willingness to understand it. They will fight you with all their might but when it does come tumbling down on them they will blame the parents for not doing more since they knew better.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
plankers 8y ago
Being able to review the code yourself is helpful, and being able to contribute to the code yourself is even better. It may not be perfect, but it's certainly a step up from bankers setting policy in their ivory towers, in my opinion. Changes to the bitcoin source code, as a rule, only happen when the development community has reached a reasonable consensus after public discussion. Then it's left to miners to implement this "policy" by running the software that developers release. Granted, not all bitcoin clients are run in this fashion, but you mention the core developers, who are held accountable to the community by their reputations. There's something greatly liberating about being able to talk to the policy setters on IRC and have them treat you like any other person, rather than part of the rabble.

roenxi 8y ago

Or even if it was a little bit of fairness in how the QE is distributed. For better or worse, America is the leading example of capitalism in practice. It undermines the whole brand of capitalism when they hand out 4 trillion to the banks then call it a day. Where does the integrity of the system come in to the debate? That sort of thing was meant to be a hallmark of the communists, not first world nations.

close04 8y ago
No, unfortunately it's perfectly capitalist. Because the premise of capitalism [1] is (extremely simplified) "help the capital holder because they will have more power to help the others". If an employer does better he will hire more people so more well being. Another basic capitalist concept is that politics should not influence capital but capital should influence politics. That's because who would know better how to make money and what's best: money makers or politicians? The idea is political interest can turn into unwise economic moves, but capitalist interest will always turn into wise economic moves. Why do you think lobbying isn't considered corruption? Because it's expected that politics needs a hand from business to make the right call. In practice this turns out how you see it today. The premise was solid, the implementation not so much. In communism state dictates and the business is at its mercy. In capitalism capital dictates and the state is at its mercy. See the QE as quieting up an unruly child by giving him what he wants. What else can you do, get another child? Sink your economy? It's still your own people you hurt in the end. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
- vignesh_m 8y ago
  Idk why you're being downvoted when you're right. I guess people are incorrectly thinking you support this behaviour instead of simply stating how it is capitalist.
  - close04 8y ago
    People rarely take the time to understand what you're trying to say these days. They're also very misinformed and take it personally when they think you're attacking their "core values". In this case I think it's because I was highlighting some downsides of the practical implementation of capitalism. Or maybe criticizing anything related to capitalism makes me a communist? Who knows... Very few people actually understand what capitalism or communism are or what they were supposed to be, beyond what quick consumption TV or internet media tells them. Also very few people accept to change their opinions as the facts change. They'd rather fight it. Good for them I guess... some things really are bliss.

msiyer 8y ago

Central banks can never be held accountable for anything. In most cases, they cannot even be audited.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> In most cases, they cannot even be audited Central banks are audited to a borderline-silly level of redundancy in every major trading economy (i.e. the U.S., EU, Japan, UK, Canada and Switzerland).
- msiyer 8y ago
  The audit is a joke. Just hogwash. What exactly happens if wrongdoings are unearthed? What happens when taxpayers' money is found lost? Nothing. Pentagon eats up trillions and no one has a clue. Trillions paid out in bank bailouts and no one questions. Billionaires take loans and declare bankruptcy... Audits performed by those who are involved in the crime is hogwash.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

>I just don’t want some unaccountable third party mucking about with the monetary policy of the currency I'm using. How do you justify that despite the blockchain being decentralized - that at any time, a dozen different people could immediately or long term ruin or muck with bitcoin’s policies and directions? I’ll also at this time point out it’s a commodity in effect, not a currency really, but different topic. Your argument seems to be the idealized “it’s open and no one owns it man” and not the reality that the only part that’s “free” is the mathy database part.

plankers 8y ago
Eh, it's not as easy to influence the policies and direction of bitcoin's core client as you might think. It requires consensus building, which is nowhere near as easy as enforcing consensus on the state of the blockchain. It's a messy process, involving much debate and hashing out (pun intended) of details. See here[1] for more. If it is a commodity, then it's one that's awfully easy to spend on whatever random bullshit I come across on the internet. [1]https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/ https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/
- lozenge 8y ago
  It takes a concerted effort but it's definitely possible, especially by those who moderate forums and subreddits. Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin were all successful in doing so, although they each only captured part of the original Bitcoin market cap.
  - plankers 8y ago
    You seem to be confusing the moderation of non-technical forums with the process of achieving consensus between experts on highly technical issues. My apologies if this isn't the case. The bitcoin forks you name have experts working on their development, true. But these developers represent a small fraction of the number of contributors to the bitcoin core client. As the number of people increases, so too does the difficulty of coming to consensus on the direction of development.

FabHK 8y ago

> when they fuck up Most central banks in developed countries have delivered reasonable moderate inflation over decades. Also, in most developed countries you're free to hold other (fiat) currencies or real assets. Of course, some countries have huge problems, but if they introduce capital controls, they are just as likely to prohibit you from holding Bitcoin as from holding other currencies. I still don't see what problem cryptocurrencies are solving here.

plankers 8y ago
They solve the problem of getting money past Venezuela's currency controls at the border, assuming you can find somebody in the country who will accept it. That's not a small if, but it does represent an alternative that would not exist without cryptocurrencies. But I'm talking more about when central banks fail to react to crises, sometimes only acting months or years after action could be taken to prevent some of the worst aspects of these crashes. Plus the current pervasive distortion of markets due to quantitative easing (and now, the inverse) is seriously fucking with how we value companies. The P/E ratio of most large tech companies is absolutely crazeballs bonkers and we have monetary policy, in part, to thank for that. As for inflation, the U.S. Federal Reserve can't seem to figure out why inflation is as low as it is with unemployment this low. They just don't know!
- Retric 8y ago
  Electric transfers can occur anywhere, so again what exactly does bitcoin bring to the table?
jkabrg 8y ago
Just because something is OK -- and has been OK for a hundred years -- doesn't mean it isn't also massively brittle (not that I'm saying it is). You're committing the fallacy of induction when talking about economics. Dangerous move.

rednerrus 8y ago

Bitfinexed would like to have a word with you. If Bitfinexs wash trading or printing Tether as fast as they can to prop up the value of BTC isn’t mucking about in the currency you’re using, I don’t know what is.

plankers 8y ago
Solid point, but I'd prefer a permissionless system where any actor is able to have a voice in the direction of policy to a walled garden where wealth appears to be a prerequisite for membership. Any permissionless system must allow maliciously self-interested actors to act as they please, so long as the underlying soundness of the currency is not affected. The mass printing of tether has no effect on the usefulness of bitcoin as a transaction medium, just a temporary effect on its usefulness as a store of value (and personally, the value of bitcoin seems to be doing just fine). I'm still able to transfer bitcoin from my personal device anywhere in the world in seconds (at 0 confirmations, about an hour for the recommended 6), as opposed to waiting days for an ACH or wire transfer to clear. Anyway, bad actors are the reason that we need the rule of law in this space. If Bitfinex is as shady as is claimed, they won't be able to get away with their schemes indefinitely.

knorker 8y ago

Don't confuse you not agreeing with decision with authorities not being accountable. And if you think unregulated exchanges aren't mucking with the market then I have a bridge to sell you. Bitcoin is deliberately unaccountable. Someone did something we all agree should not be done? That sucks, we decided to mathematically prevent preventions of that. And remind me, what happened to Ethereum to create Ethereum Classic? And apparently they are going to (or have already) done it again! It's capitalism for the poor, communism for the rich all over again. And if you think central banks are unaccountable then why haven't they literally stolen all the money? With Bitcoin everything that can be stolen is. Central banks don't literally have armies.