3 ms·

It's not currencies that are protected by threats of violence. It's countries. They would still spend all that money if everyone used bitcoin.

• brutusborn 4y ago
  Counterfeiting is prevented by police forces via violence, so I would argue that some of the police energy budget could be included. Police are kept in power by militaries, so some of the military's budget should be included too.
  • imtringued 4y ago
    Counterfeiting is mostly prevented through security measures on the bill itself which can be confirmed through counterfeit detectors. The police force just makes it easier for people to not have to carry detectors and use them for every single transaction. Aka optimistic security. Anyway, the problem is even if you do all of that, Bitcoin miners also pay taxes that fund the military and Bitcoin miners depend on property rights, landownership, electricity infrastructure, fiat currency just like any other company. Internalising these costs makes the economy more efficient, it doesn't absolve Bitcoin of benefiting from human violence.
    • brutusborn 4y ago
      Isn't the energy cost of this violence the real point though? Proof of work cost is analogous to the police violence/detection/bill security costs you mention, so that is what we should be comparing. The cost of land ownership, security and electricity is included in the cost of POW, so including it is counting double. You could argue the police help secure the miners from physical theft, but they also help prevent physical theft from fiat banks, so shouldn't that be equal if not in favour of bitcoin?