4 ms·

No, that doesnt follow. But in any case, what is "using" bitcoin? Is it purchasing bitcoin? ...how do I do that? I'd need to rely on the two mining companies,

No, that doesnt follow. But in any case, what is "using" bitcoin? Is it purchasing bitcoin? ...how do I do that? I'd need to rely on the two mining companies, right? And the exchanges? Or not? And can I use bitcoin as currency in any shop? No? If I could, I'd be relying on the state to provide the same rights behind all economic transactions to enable, that right? And what happens if the handful of "wales" decide to off-load their coins in the middle of my negotiation when I'm buying my tesla... suddenly, all my deflationary currency has been magically radically inflated by a cabal of SV billionaires. Money isnt the kind of thing that "centralisation" even applies to in any coherent sense. If BTC is suppose to be money, then it's supposed to be a system for book-keeping aggregate promises across the global collective of human beings. The value of money, it's "use" in any sense, is subject to provision of economic systems by central authorities, and subject to wild forces of decentralisation and centralisation. The networking sense of "centralisation" which applies to blockchain is a pun. It's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with any of this. It could be called, "wide-broadcast machine signalling"

olalonde 4y ago
> But in any case, what is "using" bitcoin? > Is it purchasing bitcoin? ...how do I do that? I'd need to rely on the two mining companies, right? And the exchanges? Or not? Transacting on the Bitcoin network: sending BTC from one party to another. There are more than two mining companies, otherwise Bitcoin's security model fails (see 51% attack). Of course, centralized exchanges are... centralized. > And can I use bitcoin as currency in any shop? No? If I could, I'd be relying on the state to provide the same rights behind all economic transactions to enable, that right? When people say that Bitcoin doesn't require trust, they don't mean that nothing requires trust anymore. They just mean that they don't have to trust a centralized party to run the Bitcoin network, because there is no such entity. Beyond that, you indeed still need to trust the people you transact with or trust that you will be able to sue them if they scam you, etc. > And what happens if the handful of "wales" decide to off-load their coins in the middle of my negotiation when I'm buying my tesla... suddenly, all my deflationary currency has been magically radically inflated by a cabal of SV billionaires. Yes. > Money isnt the kind of thing that "centralisation" even applies to in any coherent sense. Yes it is. Even before Bitcoin, (de)centralization was used to contrast fiat money vs commodity money. > The value of money, it's "use" in any sense, is subject to provision of economic systems by central authorities, and subject to wild forces of decentralisation and centralisation. Yes. There is a risk that the use of Bitcoin could be outlawed by some governments, although it would be difficult to enforce in practice.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  We are largely in agreement as you concede my points. But you want to retain this word as applied, eg., to bitcoin. The sound of rain falling is neither "centralised" nor "decentralised". It isnt the kind of thing which could be either *in the relevant sense of the word*. When we talk about centralisation in economics and politics we arent talking about where databases are. Bitcoin is as centralised *a system* as any which exist, and much much more so than paper money. This idea that you can send a signal betweeen two machines you own and make some changes to your wallet is a gross misdirection. That has nothing to do with any of the value props of crypto. It has no economic or political meaning. It's purely a technical property of the technology.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    > We are largely in agreement as you concede my points. Concede would mean that I changed my mind. I didn't. You said some true things but which are irrelevant to your original claim. > When we talk about centralisation in economics and politics we arent talking about where databases are. Perfectly agree (as I thought I had made abundantly clear in my previous comments). I'm sure for example that Paypal has databases all over the world and yet it is not "decentralized" in this context (in the economical/political sense). Centralization in this context refers to who is in charge. A centralized economy is one that is managed by centralized planners. A central bank has central bankers in control. Paypal has executives in control. There is no centralized entity that controls Bitcoin.
    - mjburgess 4y ago
      Central banks only "control" money in the sense that they have been granted the exclusive monopoly by the state to provide banks with it (and so on). The state has not taken any view, yet, on who should have such a monopoly on crypto; but they can. Defacto monopolies exist in the form of the two mining companies. This is all extrinsic to crypto. Likewise, literally printing paper money is "decentralised". There's nothing about the present technology of "fiat" money any more or less "decentralised". What you're talking about is how the state grants monopolies. And, as far as that's concerned, crypto will not fair well in that regard -- not at all!

olalonde 4y ago

> But in any case, what is "using" bitcoin? > Is it purchasing bitcoin? ...how do I do that? I'd need to rely on the two mining companies, right? And the exchanges? Or not? Transacting on the Bitcoin network: sending BTC from one party to another. There are more than two mining companies, otherwise Bitcoin's security model fails (see 51% attack). Of course, centralized exchanges are... centralized. > And can I use bitcoin as currency in any shop? No? If I could, I'd be relying on the state to provide the same rights behind all economic transactions to enable, that right? When people say that Bitcoin doesn't require trust, they don't mean that nothing requires trust anymore. They just mean that they don't have to trust a centralized party to run the Bitcoin network, because there is no such entity. Beyond that, you indeed still need to trust the people you transact with or trust that you will be able to sue them if they scam you, etc. > And what happens if the handful of "wales" decide to off-load their coins in the middle of my negotiation when I'm buying my tesla... suddenly, all my deflationary currency has been magically radically inflated by a cabal of SV billionaires. Yes. > Money isnt the kind of thing that "centralisation" even applies to in any coherent sense. Yes it is. Even before Bitcoin, (de)centralization was used to contrast fiat money vs commodity money. > The value of money, it's "use" in any sense, is subject to provision of economic systems by central authorities, and subject to wild forces of decentralisation and centralisation. Yes. There is a risk that the use of Bitcoin could be outlawed by some governments, although it would be difficult to enforce in practice.

mjburgess 4y ago
We are largely in agreement as you concede my points. But you want to retain this word as applied, eg., to bitcoin. The sound of rain falling is neither "centralised" nor "decentralised". It isnt the kind of thing which could be either *in the relevant sense of the word*. When we talk about centralisation in economics and politics we arent talking about where databases are. Bitcoin is as centralised *a system* as any which exist, and much much more so than paper money. This idea that you can send a signal betweeen two machines you own and make some changes to your wallet is a gross misdirection. That has nothing to do with any of the value props of crypto. It has no economic or political meaning. It's purely a technical property of the technology.
- olalonde 4y ago
  > We are largely in agreement as you concede my points. Concede would mean that I changed my mind. I didn't. You said some true things but which are irrelevant to your original claim. > When we talk about centralisation in economics and politics we arent talking about where databases are. Perfectly agree (as I thought I had made abundantly clear in my previous comments). I'm sure for example that Paypal has databases all over the world and yet it is not "decentralized" in this context (in the economical/political sense). Centralization in this context refers to who is in charge. A centralized economy is one that is managed by centralized planners. A central bank has central bankers in control. Paypal has executives in control. There is no centralized entity that controls Bitcoin.
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    Central banks only "control" money in the sense that they have been granted the exclusive monopoly by the state to provide banks with it (and so on). The state has not taken any view, yet, on who should have such a monopoly on crypto; but they can. Defacto monopolies exist in the form of the two mining companies. This is all extrinsic to crypto. Likewise, literally printing paper money is "decentralised". There's nothing about the present technology of "fiat" money any more or less "decentralised". What you're talking about is how the state grants monopolies. And, as far as that's concerned, crypto will not fair well in that regard -- not at all!