3 ms·
I disagree with the claims about effectiveness, but this is otherwise correct. Bitcoin emerged from the Cypherpunks crowd; while nobody has positively IDed the
by _jal 7y ago
I disagree with the claims about effectiveness, but this is otherwise correct.
Bitcoin emerged from the Cypherpunks crowd; while nobody has positively IDed the 'real' author of the paper, the ideological motivations are rooted in anarcho-capitalist thought. The operative theory is really not that different than Grover Norquist's; attack the tax base and the state withers. Grover is just less ambitious.
The flaw in the bitcoin thesis is that the internet is powerful tool of centralized control and reinforces authoritarians, not the opposite.
- rasengan 7y agoI don't know why people are downvoting this comment as it is correct. The only thing I would disagree with is the disagreement about the claims about effectiveness. While we may not have "replaced money," make no mistake, we have entered a new era - bitcoin was not stopped even though they tried. Bitcoin has succeeded. It is our symbol of proof - proof that we the people can control our own money.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoI think Bitcoin was stopped, it was adopted by a secondary tier who were only using it to speculate, then it was brought into the tax systems of governments, now it's treated as principally something other than for daily transactions. It's so volatile it's useless except for speculators. Greed ruined it, I feel, like it does with everything else.
- _jal 7y agoI'm resigned to losing internet points any time I open my mouth about bitcoin. I'm neither a cheerleader nor an opponent, so approximately nobody involved likes what I say about it. We probably disagree on other things bitcoin-related, but right here I think it is only about how we're defining 'success'. I agree that it is an existence-proof for decentralized currency, and am not trying to downplay the significance of that.