2 ms·

You better not particpate in fiat currencies that maintain themselves by spending TwHs to maintain their standing armies (or diplomatic relations with countries

You better not particpate in fiat currencies that maintain themselves by spending TwHs to maintain their standing armies (or diplomatic relations with countries that do have standing armies).

trimbo 6y ago
Spending energy on bitcoin would replace the need for militaries?
- superkuh 6y ago
  No, nation states and their fiat currencies are locked into the bare metal layer of human relations and the only thing that matters is ability to legitimately threaten to kill humans and destroy infrastructure. (or an alliance with a country that has those capabilities) Bitcoin is not a nationstate and doesn't have the weaknesses of nation states and their economic systems. It uses far less energy to establish and maintain itself.
hashkb 6y ago
Don't you need the armies to protect the infrastructure that powers bitcoin? And if you get to the point where you don't need armies, do you need a massive global network to verify you can trust the people you're doing business with?
- superkuh 6y ago
  Bitcoin infrastructure is distributed widely across the world. No single country disappearing off the face of the earth entirely would take it down before the internet itself went down.
  - noxer 6y ago
    Assuming Thanos would snap away China (the whole land not just the people) bitcoin definitely could be considered "down" because it would no longer mine blocks every 10 minutes on average. Difficulty does adjust but that take weeks. the internet would not be effected like that.
harlanji 6y ago
Thanks. Had not considered that. An acre of property is enough to get as close as possible, earning as much as needed for taxes and utilities thru death. Few other promises in life. That sounds more defeated than I like. What I mean is that steady state life through generations should look pretty similar, because we all eat and potty and need to be cleaned, etc. Transhumanism could speciate us, no doubt. I was deep into that for a while but can’t grok consciousness downloading yet so I’ve become a lot more wait-and-see. But back to the point, thanks for that angle. I’ve objected to Bitcoin since at least 2010ish, where I mentioned that I didn’t want to turn the polar bears black on Facebook but maybe that it looks epic and brilliant technically.
jcranmer 6y ago
That's not how fiat currencies maintain value. I suspect, if you do a thorough analysis of history, the inflation rate is going to be mostly uncorrelated with the percentage of GDP spent on military. Perhaps it might be negatively correlated, as high military spending typically means wars which have historically (especially in pre-modern times) resulted in massive financial crises for those countries heavily involved in them.

You better not particpate in fiat currencies that maintain themselves by spending TwHs to maintain their standing armies (or diplomatic relations with countries that do have standing armies).

trimbo 6y ago

Spending energy on bitcoin would replace the need for militaries?

superkuh 6y ago
No, nation states and their fiat currencies are locked into the bare metal layer of human relations and the only thing that matters is ability to legitimately threaten to kill humans and destroy infrastructure. (or an alliance with a country that has those capabilities) Bitcoin is not a nationstate and doesn't have the weaknesses of nation states and their economic systems. It uses far less energy to establish and maintain itself.

hashkb 6y ago

Don't you need the armies to protect the infrastructure that powers bitcoin? And if you get to the point where you don't need armies, do you need a massive global network to verify you can trust the people you're doing business with?

superkuh 6y ago
Bitcoin infrastructure is distributed widely across the world. No single country disappearing off the face of the earth entirely would take it down before the internet itself went down.
- noxer 6y ago
  Assuming Thanos would snap away China (the whole land not just the people) bitcoin definitely could be considered "down" because it would no longer mine blocks every 10 minutes on average. Difficulty does adjust but that take weeks. the internet would not be effected like that.

harlanji 6y ago

Thanks. Had not considered that. An acre of property is enough to get as close as possible, earning as much as needed for taxes and utilities thru death. Few other promises in life. That sounds more defeated than I like. What I mean is that steady state life through generations should look pretty similar, because we all eat and potty and need to be cleaned, etc. Transhumanism could speciate us, no doubt. I was deep into that for a while but can’t grok consciousness downloading yet so I’ve become a lot more wait-and-see. But back to the point, thanks for that angle. I’ve objected to Bitcoin since at least 2010ish, where I mentioned that I didn’t want to turn the polar bears black on Facebook but maybe that it looks epic and brilliant technically.

jcranmer 6y ago

That's not how fiat currencies maintain value. I suspect, if you do a thorough analysis of history, the inflation rate is going to be mostly uncorrelated with the percentage of GDP spent on military. Perhaps it might be negatively correlated, as high military spending typically means wars which have historically (especially in pre-modern times) resulted in massive financial crises for those countries heavily involved in them.