3 ms·

Now you’re just dodging the question. Prove your assertion that a country on bitcoin would need a smaller army. I’ll wait. Edit: saying that the economy would

Now you’re just dodging the question. Prove your assertion that a country on bitcoin would need a smaller army. I’ll wait. Edit: saying that the economy would be deflationary and thus couldn’t afford a large army would be a hilarious way to go.

keymone 8y ago
fiat's value is, at least partially, backed by an army that can defend/assert it. not having fiat eliminates the need for as much army.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  There’s two issues here. First, the logic doesn’t work. Let “has fiat currency” be A, and “has a large army” be B. You’re asserting “If A then B; therefore if not A then not B”. This is a formal logic error called “denying the antecedent”, which means the argument is invalid. (You also don’t support A well, but that’s a side point because your logical assertion doesn’t work). Second, there are plenty of examples of rich fiat countries with small armies (Switzerland, 0.7% GDP defense spending) and non-fiat countries with massive army expenditures (Roman Empire, harder to calculate due to history and lower productivity, but at least 2.5% GDP and 80% of the entire government budget). The presence of both indicates that the form of currency a country uses is secondary to other intangible aspects when it comes to the formation and maintenance of large armies.
  - keymone 8y ago
    > Let “has fiat currency” be A, and “has a large army” be B. You’re asserting “If A then B; therefore if not A then not B”. those are incorrect presumptions and therefore incorrect conclusion. A is "has fiat currency", B is "needs an army or other means to maintain fiat value". of course army is not the only thing, but it's one of the things in many of the countries. whatever other things other countries have to assert fiat value - those too consume some energy-equivalent of resources. army is just the most obvious and easy to understand example. and yes, there are also feedback loops, there is no strict causal relationship between the components of this system, which is yet another reason why you can't make these energy consumption comparisons without being intellectually dishonest.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      You can change the definition of B all you want, it's still a formal fallacy, meaning the argument is literally worthless. You have to structure a very different argument from what you've shown to assert that bitcoin would reduce national military expenditures, not just tweak the details.
      - keymone 8y ago
        it's not about definition of A and B, it's about structure of the sentence. if maintaining fiat value requires spending resources then not having to maintain fiat value means there is no need to spend resources to maintain fiat value. it's really a truism, there is no need to do this dance of yours with logic and fallacies unless you are trying to confuse people and/or push some agenda.
        village-idiot 8y ago
        > it's not about definition of A and B, it's about structure of the sentence I agree! And the structure of the argument is fundamentally invalid. > there is no need to do this dance of yours with logic and fallacies ... Oh, I guess we don't agree. > it's really a truism "I don't have an argument, but I believe it very strongly". > you are trying to confuse people and/or push some agenda Accusing those who disagree with you of pushing an "agenda" is both a bad argument and bad etiquette. Stop.
        keymone 8y ago
        > Accusing those who disagree with you but you don't just disagree, you make convoluted invalid arguments. there is no logical fallacy in > if maintaining fiat value requires spending resources then not having to maintain fiat value means there is no need to spend resources to maintain fiat value it's indeed a case of: > "I don't have an argument, but I believe it very strongly". but on your part.
    - jcranmer 8y ago
      > yet another reason why you can't make these energy consumption comparisons without being intellectually dishonest. The intellectually dishonest part is trying to shove as many extra costs onto the fiat currency side of the equation without counting them for cryptocurrency. Comparing the energy cost per transaction is a simple, pairwise comparison. Even if all the world used bitcoin for currency, there is no reason to expect that things like banks, armies, and the entire financial ecosystem wouldn't also exist. Trying to make fiat currency account for all the latter costs is just trying to mask the fact that bitcoin is by design inefficient.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  Explain the value of the Somali shilling, then.

keymone 8y ago

fiat's value is, at least partially, backed by an army that can defend/assert it. not having fiat eliminates the need for as much army.

village-idiot 8y ago
There’s two issues here. First, the logic doesn’t work. Let “has fiat currency” be A, and “has a large army” be B. You’re asserting “If A then B; therefore if not A then not B”. This is a formal logic error called “denying the antecedent”, which means the argument is invalid. (You also don’t support A well, but that’s a side point because your logical assertion doesn’t work). Second, there are plenty of examples of rich fiat countries with small armies (Switzerland, 0.7% GDP defense spending) and non-fiat countries with massive army expenditures (Roman Empire, harder to calculate due to history and lower productivity, but at least 2.5% GDP and 80% of the entire government budget). The presence of both indicates that the form of currency a country uses is secondary to other intangible aspects when it comes to the formation and maintenance of large armies.
- keymone 8y ago
  > Let “has fiat currency” be A, and “has a large army” be B. You’re asserting “If A then B; therefore if not A then not B”. those are incorrect presumptions and therefore incorrect conclusion. A is "has fiat currency", B is "needs an army or other means to maintain fiat value". of course army is not the only thing, but it's one of the things in many of the countries. whatever other things other countries have to assert fiat value - those too consume some energy-equivalent of resources. army is just the most obvious and easy to understand example. and yes, there are also feedback loops, there is no strict causal relationship between the components of this system, which is yet another reason why you can't make these energy consumption comparisons without being intellectually dishonest.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    You can change the definition of B all you want, it's still a formal fallacy, meaning the argument is literally worthless. You have to structure a very different argument from what you've shown to assert that bitcoin would reduce national military expenditures, not just tweak the details.
    - keymone 8y ago
      it's not about definition of A and B, it's about structure of the sentence. if maintaining fiat value requires spending resources then not having to maintain fiat value means there is no need to spend resources to maintain fiat value. it's really a truism, there is no need to do this dance of yours with logic and fallacies unless you are trying to confuse people and/or push some agenda.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        > it's not about definition of A and B, it's about structure of the sentence I agree! And the structure of the argument is fundamentally invalid. > there is no need to do this dance of yours with logic and fallacies ... Oh, I guess we don't agree. > it's really a truism "I don't have an argument, but I believe it very strongly". > you are trying to confuse people and/or push some agenda Accusing those who disagree with you of pushing an "agenda" is both a bad argument and bad etiquette. Stop.
        keymone 8y ago
        > Accusing those who disagree with you but you don't just disagree, you make convoluted invalid arguments. there is no logical fallacy in > if maintaining fiat value requires spending resources then not having to maintain fiat value means there is no need to spend resources to maintain fiat value it's indeed a case of: > "I don't have an argument, but I believe it very strongly". but on your part.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    > yet another reason why you can't make these energy consumption comparisons without being intellectually dishonest. The intellectually dishonest part is trying to shove as many extra costs onto the fiat currency side of the equation without counting them for cryptocurrency. Comparing the energy cost per transaction is a simple, pairwise comparison. Even if all the world used bitcoin for currency, there is no reason to expect that things like banks, armies, and the entire financial ecosystem wouldn't also exist. Trying to make fiat currency account for all the latter costs is just trying to mask the fact that bitcoin is by design inefficient.
jcranmer 8y ago
Explain the value of the Somali shilling, then.