6 ms·

How does someone measure the potential value of "being a pain in the ass to those who seek to control the supply of money"

by bustin 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
Being a general pain in the ass is of negative utility. Define "controlled supply of money" with reference to counter-examples of uncontrolled money supply? Money supply needs limits, surely?
- bustin 6y ago
  I could have been more specific, you're right! I believe the value of cryptocurrency is to neuter governments' abilities to inflate or devalue currency with the push of a button, and to improve our ability to transact freely with one another. I absolutely agree with you that money needs limitations, such as hard rules on supply increases. A money supply that is uncontrolled in such a way that you can make more or less whenever you personally feel like it regardless of the other users' intentions won't be useful for very long. I personally think of cryptocurrency like a constitution but for money - whereas before whoever had the biggest guns could decree How It Is Now, the guns will be powerless to what is written down. In this way, it removes power of a select few to control the supply of money for their benefit. I don't know how this ends. Is it a net negative to the human experience? Anarchy? The select few who got into bitcoin early wielding all the power now? Taxation falling to the wayside and a deterioration of quality of life? Each of these is somewhat possible, but as someone who has 2nd hand experience of what a country can do when it has free reign to issue whole new currencies and remove old ones or devalue the existing one into oblivion, I don't really care. Let's ride this puppy and annoy some people. EDIT: some phrasing
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > I believe the value of cryptocurrency is to neuter governments' abilities to inflate or devalue currency with the push of a button Central banking is necessary function of government. If government saw their ability to do it being actually "neutered" then it would get shut right down. I am not saying that it can't be mismanaged by a state, but you do not have anything better than state fiat money. > personally think of cryptocurrency like a constitution but for money (eyeroll) > Let's ride this puppy and annoy some people. You ride on. Ride off. Ride far away.
    - bustin 6y ago
      >I am not saying that it can't be mismanaged by a state, but you do not have anything better than state fiat money. I agree with this! At the moment I don't see many things that are better yet. I hope to see an obvious winner someday. EDIT: For the record, I hold no Bitcoin. While it has a lot of potential value in creating Freedom To Transact, I'm not convinced the current price per unit is anything but a Pump and Dump. If Bitcoin is a Constitution of Money, it's a pretty fucked up one.
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    I think that's a great goal to have (I'm pro anarchy and for the dismantlement of all governments) but I don't like spending all this energy just for it. Besides, government will stop all of this before we get to anarchy, if we want anarchy (or even moving in that direction, instead of the opposite as we're doing now) we need to get there politically. Any government can say at any time: "Everyone holding cryptocurrency is a terrorist and will be persecuted" and use their monopoly on violence to enforce it. Incidentally, that's the reason I never invested in BTC (and missed out on this generation inequality wealth transfer).
arcticfox 6y ago
I have come to believe that this part of the value is absolutely enormous. It takes control of the money supply out of government's hands - which on balance, I believe is probably a bad thing in a democratic country. On the other hand, it's incredibly powerful / valuable if it's allowed to exist, and I think the cat is already out of that bag.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  > It takes control of the money supply out of government's hands - which on balance, I believe is probably a bad thing in a democratic country. Of course, no country, democratic or otherwise, will allow this to happen. The idea that you can have monetary policy exist outside of government control is a bit ludicrous. Government does still control the guns after all, and they can make anything they want illegal, as the US has done with gold in the past.
- dirtyoldmick 6y ago
  It's a good thing as long as you aren't the government.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  That is a popular narrative partially owing to some very ugly zombie tropes and the archaic understanding of wealth as shinies to be grabbed - but it simply isn't true. We had it already with various (bi)metallic standards and they had documented worse problems. Fiat currency has yet to cause wars of conquest to prevent deflationary lock up that proceeded to crash the economy through inflation after causing untold personal suffering /on success/. The maligned federal reserve already takes care of the "try to hyperinflate our ways directly out of problems to get reelected". If anything it could have the more "neutral" role of financial network independence but it still suffers the flaw of interchange chokepoint control putting them back to square one.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
It’s amazing that the popular narrative is that the average person will somehow benefit if we switch to a currency that is majority owned by a small handful of early adopters. I’m not a fan of the current inflationary economic policy, but in no way would a Bitcoin economy be a win for the average person. Early adopters and Bitcoin whales would love it because they hold the vast majority of Bitcoin. They want nothing more than to see everyone else forced to buy it from them at ever increasing prices if they want to join the Bitcoin economy. The average person loses in this scenario, though.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  It's the "bitcoin is good because I have it" narrative. That doesn't make it an equitable or even workable economic system.
  - PragmaticPulp 6y ago
    Bitcoin is like an MLM for nerds. Just get in at the ground floor and then promote it to everyone you know. They’ll invest, which makes money for you, and they’ll tell friends, who will invest...
- rawtxapp 6y ago
  A lot of the early adopters have either permanently lost their coins or sold it local maximums, very few people would have hold on to it that long. And you can argue that if they had that kind of strong belief, they should receive some rewards for it. It's like saying by the time a company IPOs, early VCs have benefited the most, while that is true, you could also argue they deserve it because of the risk they took.
  - PragmaticPulp 6y ago
    > A lot of the early adopters have either permanently lost their coins or sold it If the balance of a Bitcoin economy relies on the assumption that certain people have lost their money, something is seriously wrong. Regardless, a hypothetical Bitcoin economy would require much further buy-in from here, making current holders the early adopters. > It's like saying by the time a company IPOs, early VCs have benefited the most, while that is true, you could also argue they deserve it because of the risk they took. The VC analogy isn’t good at all. VCs invest to fund the creation of something. What did early Bitcoin investors fund? More mining and more hype? From another angle: Imagine if PayPal created a new payment system that used shares of PayPal as the currency. Anyone who wants to use the tool must buy some shares of PayPal, because that’s the currency. And oh by the way, most of those shares are owned by PayPal founders and early adopters, who will gladly sell them at a massive gain. Is Bitcoin supposed to be a speculative investment? Or a stable currency for a new economy? We can’t just pick and choose from either definition as convenient for the argument.
iamben 6y ago
Taking neither side, but just thinking of my parents - neither of who are anything 'tech' or anything 'finance'. Completely normal in most regards. For them, someone actively controlling the supply of money is probably a good thing. Anything they have is pretty safe in a bank and somewhat covered by the government. Their taxes pay for police, sewage, the bins to be taken away, their roads to be repaired. I love the idea that people are seeking to do incredible things in the crypto space, but all too often it seems to be lumped in with people's desire to transfer money across borders (again, useless for the everyperson) or avoid taxes - which if we all did would probably be a big negative. Assuming the government didn't step in pretty quickly, because what government wants to lose control? As soon as you start talking about cryptocurrency with oversight to protect my mum and dad, where people aren't just trying to get rich quickly and make sure taxes are paid - people seem to dial out pretty quickly.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > As soon as you start talking about cryptocurrency with oversight to protect my mum and dad, where people aren't just trying to get rich quickly and make sure taxes are paid - people seem to dial out pretty quickly. There is literally no role for the key feature of blockchain - decentralised ledger, proof of work-backed transactions - in this case. You might as well use a trusted, regulated party with a database. You know, like Visa do. The "incredible things" are also pointless things. That also burn energy like there's no tomorrow. Double meaning intended.

How does someone measure the potential value of "being a pain in the ass to those who seek to control the supply of money"

by bustin 6y ago

How does someone measure the potential value of "being a pain in the ass to those who seek to control the supply of money"

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago

Being a general pain in the ass is of negative utility. Define "controlled supply of money" with reference to counter-examples of uncontrolled money supply? Money supply needs limits, surely?

bustin 6y ago
I could have been more specific, you're right! I believe the value of cryptocurrency is to neuter governments' abilities to inflate or devalue currency with the push of a button, and to improve our ability to transact freely with one another. I absolutely agree with you that money needs limitations, such as hard rules on supply increases. A money supply that is uncontrolled in such a way that you can make more or less whenever you personally feel like it regardless of the other users' intentions won't be useful for very long. I personally think of cryptocurrency like a constitution but for money - whereas before whoever had the biggest guns could decree How It Is Now, the guns will be powerless to what is written down. In this way, it removes power of a select few to control the supply of money for their benefit. I don't know how this ends. Is it a net negative to the human experience? Anarchy? The select few who got into bitcoin early wielding all the power now? Taxation falling to the wayside and a deterioration of quality of life? Each of these is somewhat possible, but as someone who has 2nd hand experience of what a country can do when it has free reign to issue whole new currencies and remove old ones or devalue the existing one into oblivion, I don't really care. Let's ride this puppy and annoy some people. EDIT: some phrasing
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > I believe the value of cryptocurrency is to neuter governments' abilities to inflate or devalue currency with the push of a button Central banking is necessary function of government. If government saw their ability to do it being actually "neutered" then it would get shut right down. I am not saying that it can't be mismanaged by a state, but you do not have anything better than state fiat money. > personally think of cryptocurrency like a constitution but for money (eyeroll) > Let's ride this puppy and annoy some people. You ride on. Ride off. Ride far away.
  - bustin 6y ago
    >I am not saying that it can't be mismanaged by a state, but you do not have anything better than state fiat money. I agree with this! At the moment I don't see many things that are better yet. I hope to see an obvious winner someday. EDIT: For the record, I hold no Bitcoin. While it has a lot of potential value in creating Freedom To Transact, I'm not convinced the current price per unit is anything but a Pump and Dump. If Bitcoin is a Constitution of Money, it's a pretty fucked up one.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  I think that's a great goal to have (I'm pro anarchy and for the dismantlement of all governments) but I don't like spending all this energy just for it. Besides, government will stop all of this before we get to anarchy, if we want anarchy (or even moving in that direction, instead of the opposite as we're doing now) we need to get there politically. Any government can say at any time: "Everyone holding cryptocurrency is a terrorist and will be persecuted" and use their monopoly on violence to enforce it. Incidentally, that's the reason I never invested in BTC (and missed out on this generation inequality wealth transfer).

arcticfox 6y ago

I have come to believe that this part of the value is absolutely enormous. It takes control of the money supply out of government's hands - which on balance, I believe is probably a bad thing in a democratic country. On the other hand, it's incredibly powerful / valuable if it's allowed to exist, and I think the cat is already out of that bag.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
> It takes control of the money supply out of government's hands - which on balance, I believe is probably a bad thing in a democratic country. Of course, no country, democratic or otherwise, will allow this to happen. The idea that you can have monetary policy exist outside of government control is a bit ludicrous. Government does still control the guns after all, and they can make anything they want illegal, as the US has done with gold in the past.
dirtyoldmick 6y ago
It's a good thing as long as you aren't the government.
Nasrudith 6y ago
That is a popular narrative partially owing to some very ugly zombie tropes and the archaic understanding of wealth as shinies to be grabbed - but it simply isn't true. We had it already with various (bi)metallic standards and they had documented worse problems. Fiat currency has yet to cause wars of conquest to prevent deflationary lock up that proceeded to crash the economy through inflation after causing untold personal suffering /on success/. The maligned federal reserve already takes care of the "try to hyperinflate our ways directly out of problems to get reelected". If anything it could have the more "neutral" role of financial network independence but it still suffers the flaw of interchange chokepoint control putting them back to square one.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

It’s amazing that the popular narrative is that the average person will somehow benefit if we switch to a currency that is majority owned by a small handful of early adopters. I’m not a fan of the current inflationary economic policy, but in no way would a Bitcoin economy be a win for the average person. Early adopters and Bitcoin whales would love it because they hold the vast majority of Bitcoin. They want nothing more than to see everyone else forced to buy it from them at ever increasing prices if they want to join the Bitcoin economy. The average person loses in this scenario, though.

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
It's the "bitcoin is good because I have it" narrative. That doesn't make it an equitable or even workable economic system.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  Bitcoin is like an MLM for nerds. Just get in at the ground floor and then promote it to everyone you know. They’ll invest, which makes money for you, and they’ll tell friends, who will invest...
rawtxapp 6y ago
A lot of the early adopters have either permanently lost their coins or sold it local maximums, very few people would have hold on to it that long. And you can argue that if they had that kind of strong belief, they should receive some rewards for it. It's like saying by the time a company IPOs, early VCs have benefited the most, while that is true, you could also argue they deserve it because of the risk they took.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  > A lot of the early adopters have either permanently lost their coins or sold it If the balance of a Bitcoin economy relies on the assumption that certain people have lost their money, something is seriously wrong. Regardless, a hypothetical Bitcoin economy would require much further buy-in from here, making current holders the early adopters. > It's like saying by the time a company IPOs, early VCs have benefited the most, while that is true, you could also argue they deserve it because of the risk they took. The VC analogy isn’t good at all. VCs invest to fund the creation of something. What did early Bitcoin investors fund? More mining and more hype? From another angle: Imagine if PayPal created a new payment system that used shares of PayPal as the currency. Anyone who wants to use the tool must buy some shares of PayPal, because that’s the currency. And oh by the way, most of those shares are owned by PayPal founders and early adopters, who will gladly sell them at a massive gain. Is Bitcoin supposed to be a speculative investment? Or a stable currency for a new economy? We can’t just pick and choose from either definition as convenient for the argument.

iamben 6y ago

Taking neither side, but just thinking of my parents - neither of who are anything 'tech' or anything 'finance'. Completely normal in most regards. For them, someone actively controlling the supply of money is probably a good thing. Anything they have is pretty safe in a bank and somewhat covered by the government. Their taxes pay for police, sewage, the bins to be taken away, their roads to be repaired. I love the idea that people are seeking to do incredible things in the crypto space, but all too often it seems to be lumped in with people's desire to transfer money across borders (again, useless for the everyperson) or avoid taxes - which if we all did would probably be a big negative. Assuming the government didn't step in pretty quickly, because what government wants to lose control? As soon as you start talking about cryptocurrency with oversight to protect my mum and dad, where people aren't just trying to get rich quickly and make sure taxes are paid - people seem to dial out pretty quickly.

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> As soon as you start talking about cryptocurrency with oversight to protect my mum and dad, where people aren't just trying to get rich quickly and make sure taxes are paid - people seem to dial out pretty quickly. There is literally no role for the key feature of blockchain - decentralised ledger, proof of work-backed transactions - in this case. You might as well use a trusted, regulated party with a database. You know, like Visa do. The "incredible things" are also pointless things. That also burn energy like there's no tomorrow. Double meaning intended.