5 ms·

This is silly. Consensus (probably, I am doubtful of PoS) isn't free. You get a choice between bitcoin mining and military force. Which do you find less harmful

This is silly. Consensus (probably, I am doubtful of PoS) isn't free. You get a choice between bitcoin mining and military force. Which do you find less harmful? Edit: I should clarify. I am saying that the status of the USD as a reserve currency has led to lots of US military action.

gcheong 6y ago
False choice. Bitcoin mining isn’t going to replace military force as they address different problems.
- vntok 6y ago
  No one here is arguing for replacement of military force, your brain got stuck by a common fallacy it seems. Notice how displacing some military force usage by changing the motivation or capability for intervention (for example to maintain a currency advantage) might be in itself a Good Thing (tm) and how it does not require replacing armed forces entirely.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    "You get a choice between bitcoin mining and military force" That was literally a quote from the post being responded to.
    - nelsontodd 6y ago
      'You get a choice between bitcoin mining and military force' to solve the consensus issue. Bitcoin doesn't solve, for example, hate crimes or something like this.
      - vntok 6y ago
        Yes it is truly amazing how bad people are at reading and how fast they are at reaching (bad) conclusions from they already bad read.
    - vntok 6y ago
      Not sure what you are going for here. Indeed, reading a single sentence without considering context typically leads one to faulty conclusions. Note that the previous sentence in the parent post is "Consensus (probably, I am doubtful of PoS) isn't free."
endisneigh 6y ago
why present a false dichotomy? it's more like you choose bitcoin mining and military force or just military force
- nelsontodd 6y ago
  I think a lot of military force stems from maintaining USD hegemony. If that wasn't a thing I think the world would be safer. Although I admit I am not sure. It's a complicated conclusion & a bold claim
- epx 6y ago
  Better just to stick to military force that is useful for many other problems.
apples_oranges 6y ago
If surveillance is increased a bit more, the government won't need to use force to get your money.. they'll just use some rootkit chip on whatever device to get your private key. I am also doubtful of PoS but perhaps there's a way to make a greener coin using some amount of trust and regulation?
- noxer 6y ago
  See XRPL.org its nether PoW nor PoS its decentral ordering by voting named FBA (Federated Byzantine Agreement) Many projects and tokens use it by now.
rustybelt 6y ago
Wow. What? This may be the worst false dichotomy I've ever seen.
- nindalf 6y ago
  How so? Seems correct to me. Just this morning I had the choice of paying for groceries either with Bitcoin or by launching a violent invasion of the store.
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    But did neither due to the high transaction costs?
  - rustybelt 6y ago
    I stand corrected.
  - lostgame 6y ago
    /u/nindalf this honestly made me laugh out loud and spill my drink. The next time I am trying to explain the concept of a false dichotomy, I am absolutely using this example. XD
  - nelsontodd 6y ago
    You forget about the violent invasions that allowed the USD to maintain its value while you were paying for groceries lol
    - lostgame 6y ago
      Quite to the contrary, it was obviously part of their point. :P Poster is definitely not endorsing violent invasions.
    - rspeele 6y ago
      Can you name some that wouldn't have happened if the world ran on Bitcoin?
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Military force and law enforcement provide solutions for consensus across great many domains, so they're marginally near-free to use for consensus in any single area of interest. You could say, they are consensus factored out and made incarnate. Conversely, if all money suddenly become Bitcoin, military force and police would still be needed, in mostly the same amount they are today.
- asmos7 6y ago
  It's odd to me that people think Bitcoin can be free of "force" long term. Bad guys can point a gun at your head and demand you login into Coinbase to transfer coins to them. What happens if the government makes Microsoft give them admin accounts to the Bitcoin repo? What happens if there is a fork and China doesn't like it and prohibits miners from adopting it? BTC is way more susceptible to traditional military and government might then people make it out to be.
  - nelsontodd 6y ago
    I don't think it will eliminate the need for the military or police force entirely. I have seen a lot of bold bitcoin claims but I don't think anyone really does. My post was referring to how the US has killed lots of people to keep strong dollar. I think its feasible that a true global currency (possibly bitcoin) could prevent violence like this.
    - zepto 6y ago
      People will kill each other over the energy resources needed to run the Bitcoin network.
      - Aunche 6y ago
        Exactly. Fossil fuels and rare earth metals are already considered to be a national security risks. Depending on a currency with huge energy requirements only multiplies this risk, which further incentivizes war.
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Shorel 6y ago
Proof of Work vs Proof of Violence.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  Well, technically you only need the threat of violence. Potential-but-unrealized violence is arguably much better for humanity than proof-of-ever-escalating wasted energy.
  - nelsontodd 6y ago
    Maybe true depending on the energy source. I've heard it argued also that bitcoin will become the 'purchaser of last resort' for energy. For example, fracking companies often just burn off natural gas they find while looking for oil... instead, this gas could be used to mine btc. Also well documented that a lot of bitcoin operations in china are fueled by hydroelectric sources. The promise of violence is free until realized though.
    - SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
      Hydroelectric sources that could be best used on homes, businesses, etc. Anything but Bitcoin, really. Did everyone forget that the best goal we can achieve with power usage is by reducing consumption outright? Just because some of the mining is done on greener solutions doesn't mean it's a net positive. Global warming isn't exactly going away if we keep this experiment up.
      - nelsontodd 6y ago
        Yeah but good luck convincing people to move next to sources of energy so cheap it would be wasted otherwise (rural west texas, rural china). If bitcoin becomes the dominant global financial system, securing it will be a worthy use of energy.
        SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
xkjkls 6y ago
This is a false dichotomy.
la_fayette 6y ago
Absolutely true!

gcheong 6y ago

False choice. Bitcoin mining isn’t going to replace military force as they address different problems.

vntok 6y ago
No one here is arguing for replacement of military force, your brain got stuck by a common fallacy it seems. Notice how displacing some military force usage by changing the motivation or capability for intervention (for example to maintain a currency advantage) might be in itself a Good Thing (tm) and how it does not require replacing armed forces entirely.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  "You get a choice between bitcoin mining and military force" That was literally a quote from the post being responded to.
  - nelsontodd 6y ago
    'You get a choice between bitcoin mining and military force' to solve the consensus issue. Bitcoin doesn't solve, for example, hate crimes or something like this.
    - vntok 6y ago
      Yes it is truly amazing how bad people are at reading and how fast they are at reaching (bad) conclusions from they already bad read.
  - vntok 6y ago
    Not sure what you are going for here. Indeed, reading a single sentence without considering context typically leads one to faulty conclusions. Note that the previous sentence in the parent post is "Consensus (probably, I am doubtful of PoS) isn't free."

endisneigh 6y ago

why present a false dichotomy? it's more like you choose bitcoin mining and military force or just military force

nelsontodd 6y ago
I think a lot of military force stems from maintaining USD hegemony. If that wasn't a thing I think the world would be safer. Although I admit I am not sure. It's a complicated conclusion & a bold claim
epx 6y ago
Better just to stick to military force that is useful for many other problems.

apples_oranges 6y ago

If surveillance is increased a bit more, the government won't need to use force to get your money.. they'll just use some rootkit chip on whatever device to get your private key. I am also doubtful of PoS but perhaps there's a way to make a greener coin using some amount of trust and regulation?

noxer 6y ago
See XRPL.org its nether PoW nor PoS its decentral ordering by voting named FBA (Federated Byzantine Agreement) Many projects and tokens use it by now.

rustybelt 6y ago

Wow. What? This may be the worst false dichotomy I've ever seen.

nindalf 6y ago
How so? Seems correct to me. Just this morning I had the choice of paying for groceries either with Bitcoin or by launching a violent invasion of the store.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  But did neither due to the high transaction costs?
- rustybelt 6y ago
  I stand corrected.
- lostgame 6y ago
  /u/nindalf this honestly made me laugh out loud and spill my drink. The next time I am trying to explain the concept of a false dichotomy, I am absolutely using this example. XD
- nelsontodd 6y ago
  You forget about the violent invasions that allowed the USD to maintain its value while you were paying for groceries lol
  - lostgame 6y ago
    Quite to the contrary, it was obviously part of their point. :P Poster is definitely not endorsing violent invasions.
  - rspeele 6y ago
    Can you name some that wouldn't have happened if the world ran on Bitcoin?

TeMPOraL 6y ago

Military force and law enforcement provide solutions for consensus across great many domains, so they're marginally near-free to use for consensus in any single area of interest. You could say, they are consensus factored out and made incarnate. Conversely, if all money suddenly become Bitcoin, military force and police would still be needed, in mostly the same amount they are today.

asmos7 6y ago
It's odd to me that people think Bitcoin can be free of "force" long term. Bad guys can point a gun at your head and demand you login into Coinbase to transfer coins to them. What happens if the government makes Microsoft give them admin accounts to the Bitcoin repo? What happens if there is a fork and China doesn't like it and prohibits miners from adopting it? BTC is way more susceptible to traditional military and government might then people make it out to be.
- nelsontodd 6y ago
  I don't think it will eliminate the need for the military or police force entirely. I have seen a lot of bold bitcoin claims but I don't think anyone really does. My post was referring to how the US has killed lots of people to keep strong dollar. I think its feasible that a true global currency (possibly bitcoin) could prevent violence like this.
  - zepto 6y ago
    People will kill each other over the energy resources needed to run the Bitcoin network.
    - Aunche 6y ago
      Exactly. Fossil fuels and rare earth metals are already considered to be a national security risks. Depending on a currency with huge energy requirements only multiplies this risk, which further incentivizes war.
    - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Shorel 6y ago

Proof of Work vs Proof of Violence.

ForHackernews 6y ago
Well, technically you only need the threat of violence. Potential-but-unrealized violence is arguably much better for humanity than proof-of-ever-escalating wasted energy.
- nelsontodd 6y ago
  Maybe true depending on the energy source. I've heard it argued also that bitcoin will become the 'purchaser of last resort' for energy. For example, fracking companies often just burn off natural gas they find while looking for oil... instead, this gas could be used to mine btc. Also well documented that a lot of bitcoin operations in china are fueled by hydroelectric sources. The promise of violence is free until realized though.
  - SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
    Hydroelectric sources that could be best used on homes, businesses, etc. Anything but Bitcoin, really. Did everyone forget that the best goal we can achieve with power usage is by reducing consumption outright? Just because some of the mining is done on greener solutions doesn't mean it's a net positive. Global warming isn't exactly going away if we keep this experiment up.
    - nelsontodd 6y ago
      Yeah but good luck convincing people to move next to sources of energy so cheap it would be wasted otherwise (rural west texas, rural china). If bitcoin becomes the dominant global financial system, securing it will be a worthy use of energy.
      - SwimSwimHungry 6y ago

xkjkls 6y ago

This is a false dichotomy.

la_fayette 6y ago

Absolutely true!