9 ms·

I'd like to see the methodology. I guarantee you they can't actually determine the claim. Beyond that, bitcoin wasn't designed to "decentralize wealth and powe

I'd like to see the methodology. I guarantee you they can't actually determine the claim. Beyond that, bitcoin wasn't designed to "decentralize wealth and power", it is a disingenuous claim made by an agenda poster. Bitcoin was created to take a step towards a future where economic power is not synonymous with political power. The natural distribution of wealth is not at issue, so long as it's just that: natural.

FabHK 4y ago
> I'd like to see the methodology. https://www.nber.org/papers/w29396 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29396
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  Is that the research cited in the tweet?
  - FabHK 4y ago
    The video in the tweet is based (at least partially) on a WSJ article that is based on that paper.
abrichr 4y ago
Interesting. Can you please clarify what is meant by "natural" in this context?
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  From a birds eye view, a Pareto distribution. From the ground, so long as nobody with political power influences the distribution of wealth and it flows with the market it is a natural distribution.
  - abrichr 4y ago
    If I understand correctly, this means that a natural distribution of wealth should have exactly zero correlation with distribution of political power, is that right?
    - myself248 4y ago
      Or should correlate exactly with population. Unless some people are somehow worth less than others, which would be an interesting assertion to make.
      - betwixthewires 4y ago
        It's an interesting demand to claim that everyone should have exactly the same amount of money and if that's not the case there's some moral failure. Reframing it as people who don't believe this believe people aren't equal is dishonest.
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      Ideally, yes. There are those that argue that correlation between economic and political power is natural, and in a world where you can buy guns, that's somewhat true. But the creation of an artificial peaceful political system occurs in part to decorrelate the two. Money should buy you trinkets, political power should be democratized, at least if you believe in governments.
manquer 4y ago
Decentralizing "money" or "currency" cannot happen unless the ownership of the same is not less concentrated than what we already have. In the bitcoin world ownership is lot more concentrated than in the real world, which makes truly decentralizing anything else hard if not impossible.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  How do you figure? A currency no central authority has a monopoly on deciding supply is on it's face more decentralized, and an improvement on the social front, regardless who has what. A currency entirely owned by one person isn't a currency, and people actually using it causes dispersal to a naturally occurring Pareto distribution over time.
  - manquer 4y ago
    Currency’s is not wealth , most wealth is not stored as a currency or cash [1] it is stored in assets. If you see how actual physical cash [2] i.e. dollar bills ownership then it won’t be distributed in a typical Pareto curve. If I don’t have access to notes and coins. I won’t use them so government makes sure I have access . They still will mint it even a at loss like the penny. Also all power distributions are not Pareto distributions, bitcoin is lot steeper than the standard ones used in economics , that is what this article implies /shows in its analysis . —— [1] including other cash equivalents like bank accounts not just literal printed money. Accounting standards has well understood definition of cash equivalents [2] comparing against only physical cash (M0) because there is finite fixed amount of bitcoins available at any given point It is not possible to increase bitcoin M1/M2 supply like with fractional reserve banking so you cannot compare against narrow money let alone broad money(M3/M4)
- imtringued 4y ago
  A negative interest rate decentralises money because your balance no longer grows automatically through interest and capital gains just because you have a lot of money, which is a self reinforcing feedback loop that concentrates ever more money at the top. If you want money, you are going to have to earn it yourself instead of letting others earn it on your behalf. Of course, once you have solved the money question you notice that it is not just money that needs to be decentralised. Everything else, housing and the land it sits on must be decentralised. CO2 emission rights must be decentralised. Resource extraction rights must be decentralised. Intellectual property must be fixed. Taxes must be decentralised. Income earning/education opportunities must be decentralised. It is kind of funny how solving all these challenges would get you to something one could call true anarchism, yet actual anarchist movements aren't even anywhere close to solving them or consider them important enough to solve. They just change the governance model and assume that the aforementioned problems will resolve themselves once people get to organize their society in this way. All of this would bring us closer to a free(as in freedom) market. As it stands right now, most capitalists are happy calling this broken mess a free market. You're free to choose to not be allowed to legally exist. The truth is that it is a free market as in free of cost as there are so many tax loopholes to be exploited.
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
What in god's name does this even mean... The rich (and I don't care what fucking currency they use) are going to give up their political power? The same power that they used to get rich in the first place?
- kayamon 4y ago
  They won't willingly give it up, no. Sometimes the only answer is to pull their funding out from under them.

FabHK 4y ago

> I'd like to see the methodology. https://www.nber.org/papers/w29396 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29396

betwixthewires 4y ago
Is that the research cited in the tweet?
- FabHK 4y ago
  The video in the tweet is based (at least partially) on a WSJ article that is based on that paper.

abrichr 4y ago

Interesting. Can you please clarify what is meant by "natural" in this context?

betwixthewires 4y ago
From a birds eye view, a Pareto distribution. From the ground, so long as nobody with political power influences the distribution of wealth and it flows with the market it is a natural distribution.
- abrichr 4y ago
  If I understand correctly, this means that a natural distribution of wealth should have exactly zero correlation with distribution of political power, is that right?
  - myself248 4y ago
    Or should correlate exactly with population. Unless some people are somehow worth less than others, which would be an interesting assertion to make.
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      It's an interesting demand to claim that everyone should have exactly the same amount of money and if that's not the case there's some moral failure. Reframing it as people who don't believe this believe people aren't equal is dishonest.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    Ideally, yes. There are those that argue that correlation between economic and political power is natural, and in a world where you can buy guns, that's somewhat true. But the creation of an artificial peaceful political system occurs in part to decorrelate the two. Money should buy you trinkets, political power should be democratized, at least if you believe in governments.

manquer 4y ago

Decentralizing "money" or "currency" cannot happen unless the ownership of the same is not less concentrated than what we already have. In the bitcoin world ownership is lot more concentrated than in the real world, which makes truly decentralizing anything else hard if not impossible.

betwixthewires 4y ago
How do you figure? A currency no central authority has a monopoly on deciding supply is on it's face more decentralized, and an improvement on the social front, regardless who has what. A currency entirely owned by one person isn't a currency, and people actually using it causes dispersal to a naturally occurring Pareto distribution over time.
- manquer 4y ago
  Currency’s is not wealth , most wealth is not stored as a currency or cash [1] it is stored in assets. If you see how actual physical cash [2] i.e. dollar bills ownership then it won’t be distributed in a typical Pareto curve. If I don’t have access to notes and coins. I won’t use them so government makes sure I have access . They still will mint it even a at loss like the penny. Also all power distributions are not Pareto distributions, bitcoin is lot steeper than the standard ones used in economics , that is what this article implies /shows in its analysis . —— [1] including other cash equivalents like bank accounts not just literal printed money. Accounting standards has well understood definition of cash equivalents [2] comparing against only physical cash (M0) because there is finite fixed amount of bitcoins available at any given point It is not possible to increase bitcoin M1/M2 supply like with fractional reserve banking so you cannot compare against narrow money let alone broad money(M3/M4)
imtringued 4y ago
A negative interest rate decentralises money because your balance no longer grows automatically through interest and capital gains just because you have a lot of money, which is a self reinforcing feedback loop that concentrates ever more money at the top. If you want money, you are going to have to earn it yourself instead of letting others earn it on your behalf. Of course, once you have solved the money question you notice that it is not just money that needs to be decentralised. Everything else, housing and the land it sits on must be decentralised. CO2 emission rights must be decentralised. Resource extraction rights must be decentralised. Intellectual property must be fixed. Taxes must be decentralised. Income earning/education opportunities must be decentralised. It is kind of funny how solving all these challenges would get you to something one could call true anarchism, yet actual anarchist movements aren't even anywhere close to solving them or consider them important enough to solve. They just change the governance model and assume that the aforementioned problems will resolve themselves once people get to organize their society in this way. All of this would bring us closer to a free(as in freedom) market. As it stands right now, most capitalists are happy calling this broken mess a free market. You're free to choose to not be allowed to legally exist. The truth is that it is a free market as in free of cost as there are so many tax loopholes to be exploited.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

What in god's name does this even mean... The rich (and I don't care what fucking currency they use) are going to give up their political power? The same power that they used to get rich in the first place?

kayamon 4y ago
They won't willingly give it up, no. Sometimes the only answer is to pull their funding out from under them.