7 ms·

> Crypto is "cult by design" in much the way all greater-fool scams are. If you study the history of bitcoin (or were around and paying attention), it wasn't a

by javert 4y ago

> Crypto is "cult by design" in much the way all greater-fool scams are. If you study the history of bitcoin (or were around and paying attention), it wasn't at all designed as a cult or a scam. So this is factually wrong. However I think it's true of a lot of the later coins. > I dont think anyone has ever yet explained how this is meant to function as a currency. People have, like a zillion times, including on this forum. If it matters to you (it shouldn't), even professional economists fall into different camps on the nature of money. If you can't see that there is a real and genuine argument on both sides, you aren't trying. > One reason they're terrible is they transfer power over the economic system to early-stakers, as they have all the wealth This is a worst-case view of the situation, but many would say that even this worse case is better than giving "democratic" institutions unlimited power to print money. So again, there is a genuine argument on both sides. > So crypto people, sitting on a lot of coins, who urge adoption arent trying to "free" the economy, they're trying to own it. And there are also crypto people who are true believers, even if they do have a lot of coin. In fact, the people who got into bitcoin early but weren't true believers couldn't believe how much money they made when they sold out at $30. The distribution of true believers vs. get-rich-quick people in bitcoin is grossly different from what you imagine and portray. > any corporation which accepts bitcoins is thereby recognising an essentially feudal type of economic power. You're really conflating economics and government. For example, in the US, Bill Gates doesn't have the same kind of power as the two political parties, who control armies of soldiers and domestic enforcers. When I say "kind," I mean that literally; it's not that Bill Gates has less power; it's that he has a different kind of power. Bitcoin transforms some of the kind of power wielded by government actors into the kind of power wielded by Bill Gates.

AlexandrB 4y ago
> If you study the history of bitcoin (or were around and paying attention), it wasn't at all designed as a cult or a scam. So this is factually wrong. However I think it's true of a lot of the later coins. I think you're missing the point. I think what OP is saying is that the nature of a deflationary, speculative asset means that a cult-like environment will organically form around it. Early adopters have a strong incentive to hype it up and get others to buy in to increase their own wealth. And Bitcoin was designed to be a deflationary, speculative asset.
- javert 4y ago
  I'm definitely not missing the point.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Ah, great! Thanks for clearing that up.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- fortran77 4y ago
  Baseball cards and Beanie Babies probably weren't designed as a cult or a scam either. But people frantically speculated in them.
- miracle2k 4y ago
  > I think you're missing the point. I think what OP is saying is that the nature of a deflationary, speculative asset means that a cult-like environment will organically form around it. Bitcoin is currently issuing at 1.5% and will continue to issue for basically a hundred years. People are really confident that the /deflationary/ nature is the key to their critique, but I don't see how. The incentives for you being early into a system that will acquire a lot of users down the road (which is what you are betting on) are significantly more impactful to you financially then 2% inflation. For this reason, crypto currencies that do. not have a limited supply narrative are equally as volatile.
  - nieve 4y ago
    This is presuming that the cost of bitcoin mining are sustainable over the course of a hundred years. What kind of value do you see for BTC that makes mining profitable in 2122?
    - vjhcgggh 4y ago
throwaway82652 4y ago
>If you study the history of bitcoin (or were around and paying attention), it wasn't at all designed as a cult or a scam. I'll have to disagree there, go take a look at Satoshi's net worth. I'm honestly amazed the crypto community hasn't come out unilaterally against the concept of premining and ICOs because if it works the way it's supposed to, there is no way it won't end up as a scam where the founders of the token end up staying richer than everyone else. I mean we've seen this over and over again.
- javert 4y ago
  Uh, the bitcoin community has come out unilaterally against the concept of premining and ICOs. Bitcoiners fucking hate that shit and have been heavily criticizing it from when it first started. Which was substantially after bitcoin started, i.e. literally years later. What you need to realize is that the bitcoin community != the crypto community. Bitcoin was not premined and did not have an ICO. It's weird to talk about "Satoshi's net worth." Satoshi may not have been a single person, may be dead, and anyway, it doesn't look like those coins will ever be spent, so if Satoshi is alive, he hasn't profited financially from the coins he mined and is presumably living a poor or middle-class life, unless he happened to be independently wealthy before---but we'll probably never know.
  - throwaway82652 4y ago
    I do realize that, that's why I explicitly said the crypto community and not the bitcoin community. You misunderstand. And I would consider Satoshi's early actions to be functionally the same as premining, and there are lots of other people besides Satoshi who got rich through the same actions. So I don't think you can actually say the bitcoin community is against it in practical terms either, otherwise they would have stopped using bitcoin or forked it long ago to remove the unearned wealth from the early miners. The fact is, they actually can't do that, because the super wealthy already control the bitcoin network, and the community does not. >Satoshi may not have been a single person, may be dead, and anyway, it doesn't look like those coins will ever be spent I hope you can also see how this is precarious and irresponsible of the bitcoin community to allow this situation to continue, you just have to hope that this anonymous and unaccountable billionaire (or group of billionaires) is dead or benevolent, because if they aren't they could seriously screw up the network.
mbesto 4y ago
> but many would say that even this worse case is better than giving "democratic" institutions unlimited power to print money. "Many people say" this because they aren't the ones with the power. That's all. That's the parent's point. It's not changing the system, it's just changing the owners of the system. What's that lyric..."Meet the new boss same as the old boss"
- javert 4y ago
  > "Many people say" this because they aren't the ones with the power. No, they are saying it because they believe it. To use my prior example, they think it's better to transform the kind of power Dick Cheney or Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump could have, into the kind of power Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Jeff Bezos could have. That makes a lot of sense. You can just accuse anyone you disagree with of being a hypocrite, but that's straw-manning them when you should be steel-manning them. You don't win arguments with the tactic you're using, and you don't win hearts and minds. You also don't win when you're just plain wrong, as you are in this case.
  - mbesto 4y ago
    Big head scratch here... > You can just accuse anyone you disagree with of being a hypocrite, but that's straw-manning them when you should be steel-manning them. (1) Where did I call people hypocrites? > You don't win arguments with the tactic you're using, and you don't win hearts and minds. (2) You don't get in engage in civil discourse with people by saying things like "you're wrong" and "I'm definitely not missing the point." > You also don't win when you're just plain wrong, as you are in this case. (3) Telling people that "you're right and they are wrong" is something my 6 year old cousin does on the playground.
    - javert 4y ago
      > "Many people say" this because they aren't the ones with the power. You're literally saying that here that everyone who makes the argument that bitcoin creates a positive transformation of power---which is at least tens of thousands of people---is only pretending to believe that because they want to transfer power to themselves. You are calling them all hypocrites. And I know that's wrong, because I know lots of people who actually believe this, including myself. Your argument here is not even an argument; it's not even remotely, distantly believable. Now, I suspect you don't understand your comment the way I do, which is why I'm taking the time to respond to you. But I think that's what is implied by what you have written. I'm radically dismissive of dishonest arguments, or arguments that are blatantly and obviously wrong. I don't think it's correct to respond to them as if they are real arguments. The most effective thing is just to dismiss them. Honest readers understand what you are doing. That's the most effective response. For example, if someone says "I think you missed the point," followed with a total non-sequitur, which creates a false appearance that I missed the point, when I did not miss the point, I'm going to just dismiss it out of hand, and I'm not going to discuss it. I think that's totally appropriate. You don't give people an honest, serious response when they are playing games. The 6 year old cousin analogy is apt. If someone acts like a six year old, I respond appropriately for that age. If someone acts like an adult, I respond appropriately for an adult. By the way, I'm not rude. I'm never rude. Saying "I didn't miss the point" is the most polite thing you can say to the kind of blatantly wrong comment I got in that instance. All it really signals is that I disagree with what was said and don't want to discuss it further. That is fair.

by javert 4y ago

AlexandrB 4y ago

> If you study the history of bitcoin (or were around and paying attention), it wasn't at all designed as a cult or a scam. So this is factually wrong. However I think it's true of a lot of the later coins. I think you're missing the point. I think what OP is saying is that the nature of a deflationary, speculative asset means that a cult-like environment will organically form around it. Early adopters have a strong incentive to hype it up and get others to buy in to increase their own wealth. And Bitcoin was designed to be a deflationary, speculative asset.

javert 4y ago
I'm definitely not missing the point.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Ah, great! Thanks for clearing that up.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
fortran77 4y ago
Baseball cards and Beanie Babies probably weren't designed as a cult or a scam either. But people frantically speculated in them.
miracle2k 4y ago
> I think you're missing the point. I think what OP is saying is that the nature of a deflationary, speculative asset means that a cult-like environment will organically form around it. Bitcoin is currently issuing at 1.5% and will continue to issue for basically a hundred years. People are really confident that the /deflationary/ nature is the key to their critique, but I don't see how. The incentives for you being early into a system that will acquire a lot of users down the road (which is what you are betting on) are significantly more impactful to you financially then 2% inflation. For this reason, crypto currencies that do. not have a limited supply narrative are equally as volatile.
- nieve 4y ago
  This is presuming that the cost of bitcoin mining are sustainable over the course of a hundred years. What kind of value do you see for BTC that makes mining profitable in 2122?
  - vjhcgggh 4y ago

throwaway82652 4y ago

>If you study the history of bitcoin (or were around and paying attention), it wasn't at all designed as a cult or a scam. I'll have to disagree there, go take a look at Satoshi's net worth. I'm honestly amazed the crypto community hasn't come out unilaterally against the concept of premining and ICOs because if it works the way it's supposed to, there is no way it won't end up as a scam where the founders of the token end up staying richer than everyone else. I mean we've seen this over and over again.

javert 4y ago
Uh, the bitcoin community has come out unilaterally against the concept of premining and ICOs. Bitcoiners fucking hate that shit and have been heavily criticizing it from when it first started. Which was substantially after bitcoin started, i.e. literally years later. What you need to realize is that the bitcoin community != the crypto community. Bitcoin was not premined and did not have an ICO. It's weird to talk about "Satoshi's net worth." Satoshi may not have been a single person, may be dead, and anyway, it doesn't look like those coins will ever be spent, so if Satoshi is alive, he hasn't profited financially from the coins he mined and is presumably living a poor or middle-class life, unless he happened to be independently wealthy before---but we'll probably never know.
- throwaway82652 4y ago
  I do realize that, that's why I explicitly said the crypto community and not the bitcoin community. You misunderstand. And I would consider Satoshi's early actions to be functionally the same as premining, and there are lots of other people besides Satoshi who got rich through the same actions. So I don't think you can actually say the bitcoin community is against it in practical terms either, otherwise they would have stopped using bitcoin or forked it long ago to remove the unearned wealth from the early miners. The fact is, they actually can't do that, because the super wealthy already control the bitcoin network, and the community does not. >Satoshi may not have been a single person, may be dead, and anyway, it doesn't look like those coins will ever be spent I hope you can also see how this is precarious and irresponsible of the bitcoin community to allow this situation to continue, you just have to hope that this anonymous and unaccountable billionaire (or group of billionaires) is dead or benevolent, because if they aren't they could seriously screw up the network.

mbesto 4y ago

> but many would say that even this worse case is better than giving "democratic" institutions unlimited power to print money. "Many people say" this because they aren't the ones with the power. That's all. That's the parent's point. It's not changing the system, it's just changing the owners of the system. What's that lyric..."Meet the new boss same as the old boss"

javert 4y ago
> "Many people say" this because they aren't the ones with the power. No, they are saying it because they believe it. To use my prior example, they think it's better to transform the kind of power Dick Cheney or Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump could have, into the kind of power Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Jeff Bezos could have. That makes a lot of sense. You can just accuse anyone you disagree with of being a hypocrite, but that's straw-manning them when you should be steel-manning them. You don't win arguments with the tactic you're using, and you don't win hearts and minds. You also don't win when you're just plain wrong, as you are in this case.
- mbesto 4y ago
  Big head scratch here... > You can just accuse anyone you disagree with of being a hypocrite, but that's straw-manning them when you should be steel-manning them. (1) Where did I call people hypocrites? > You don't win arguments with the tactic you're using, and you don't win hearts and minds. (2) You don't get in engage in civil discourse with people by saying things like "you're wrong" and "I'm definitely not missing the point." > You also don't win when you're just plain wrong, as you are in this case. (3) Telling people that "you're right and they are wrong" is something my 6 year old cousin does on the playground.
  - javert 4y ago
    > "Many people say" this because they aren't the ones with the power. You're literally saying that here that everyone who makes the argument that bitcoin creates a positive transformation of power---which is at least tens of thousands of people---is only pretending to believe that because they want to transfer power to themselves. You are calling them all hypocrites. And I know that's wrong, because I know lots of people who actually believe this, including myself. Your argument here is not even an argument; it's not even remotely, distantly believable. Now, I suspect you don't understand your comment the way I do, which is why I'm taking the time to respond to you. But I think that's what is implied by what you have written. I'm radically dismissive of dishonest arguments, or arguments that are blatantly and obviously wrong. I don't think it's correct to respond to them as if they are real arguments. The most effective thing is just to dismiss them. Honest readers understand what you are doing. That's the most effective response. For example, if someone says "I think you missed the point," followed with a total non-sequitur, which creates a false appearance that I missed the point, when I did not miss the point, I'm going to just dismiss it out of hand, and I'm not going to discuss it. I think that's totally appropriate. You don't give people an honest, serious response when they are playing games. The 6 year old cousin analogy is apt. If someone acts like a six year old, I respond appropriately for that age. If someone acts like an adult, I respond appropriately for an adult. By the way, I'm not rude. I'm never rude. Saying "I didn't miss the point" is the most polite thing you can say to the kind of blatantly wrong comment I got in that instance. All it really signals is that I disagree with what was said and don't want to discuss it further. That is fair.