4 ms·

That’s strange because I see it essentially in reverse of that: To change the Bitcoin price, vote with your dollars, going long or shorting. You will materiall

by Empact 6y ago

That’s strange because I see it essentially in reverse of that: To change the Bitcoin price, vote with your dollars, going long or shorting. You will materially impact the order book and resulting price. Other ways exist: starting a company like the ones mentioned in the article. In contrast, in federal elections you have a vanishingly small chance of casting a deciding vote between two participants in an actual oligopoly (more specifically, a duopoly), who are themselves primarily allied with powerful interests which include the banking sector. Does anyone really believe their reps are responsive to them on issues like monetary policy?

glitchc 6y ago
And if you don't have dollars? No dollars, no votes? And the corollary: More dollars, more votes? Sounds like a plutocracy, don't you think? Be careful what you wish for. Unless you're secretly Bezos or another of the billionaires' club, in a plutocracy you and I and countless others are just peons. At least in democracy you have a voice, regardless of your bank balance. Democracy may suck as a system, but it's definitely better than the alternatives :) I'll venture further and say those who say otherwise have either never actually lived in the alternative, or secretly harbour delusions of grandeur.
- Empact 6y ago
  Without dollars there is: advocacy, open source contributions, and sweat equity - as many ways to participate as there are social and creative avenues. Incidentally, some but not all of these are vaunted as the noble ways to participate in politics, including the voice you so celebrate. Is democracy better? Why did our founders have such a negative opinion of it? The history of unrestrained Democracy is one of failure, e.g. voting oneself into poverty via socialism, or a French-style democratic revolution in which heads roll. So yeah, maybe take your notion of democracy down a notch, it's not so noble.

by Empact 6y ago

glitchc 6y ago

And if you don't have dollars? No dollars, no votes? And the corollary: More dollars, more votes? Sounds like a plutocracy, don't you think? Be careful what you wish for. Unless you're secretly Bezos or another of the billionaires' club, in a plutocracy you and I and countless others are just peons. At least in democracy you have a voice, regardless of your bank balance. Democracy may suck as a system, but it's definitely better than the alternatives :) I'll venture further and say those who say otherwise have either never actually lived in the alternative, or secretly harbour delusions of grandeur.

Empact 6y ago
Without dollars there is: advocacy, open source contributions, and sweat equity - as many ways to participate as there are social and creative avenues. Incidentally, some but not all of these are vaunted as the noble ways to participate in politics, including the voice you so celebrate. Is democracy better? Why did our founders have such a negative opinion of it? The history of unrestrained Democracy is one of failure, e.g. voting oneself into poverty via socialism, or a French-style democratic revolution in which heads roll. So yeah, maybe take your notion of democracy down a notch, it's not so noble.