4 ms·

> but it sits at the middle of theoretical computer science, economics and finance in a novel way that responds to a lot of shortcomings of attempts before it.

> but it sits at the middle of theoretical computer science, economics and finance in a novel way that responds to a lot of shortcomings of attempts before it. The problem here is that the creator of Bitcoin was following a philosophical motivation, not a scientific one. The 'economics' behind it are completely misguided and appear to be based on the notion that taking power away from powerful entities and distributing amongst individuals will remove the problems associated with capitalist systems. It does not consider that people created these entities and removing power from systems that rely on it creates power vacuums which society abhors. Things just end up getting to the same place a different way, but redoing all of the bad outcomes that had to be painfully learned and many times almost led to humanity scrapping capitalism and free markets altogether because of the damage done. When you approach problems thinking you have the answer before you start looking for the solution, then you get things like Soviet Russia and you get things like eugenics and you get things like Bitcoin. I am sorry but by saying 'it has critical flaws' and then also claiming that it it is some work of science and can be used for progress in economics and technology and finance, you neglect totally that it's first and most critical flaw is that it is the product of a dogma which is completely removed from reality in two of those areas.

abetusk 4y ago
It's a weird distinction you make. To say that it's a philosophical motivation is ignoring motivation of a lot of innovation and kind of beside the point. The "philosophy" of the internet was to build a network that would be resilient against a nuclear attack yet, because of those motivations and in spite of that cynical outlook, the internet was created that was robust and flexible. The "philosophical" motivation behind cryptography is privacy. The "philosophical" motivation behind medical research is to improve peoples quality of life. Science is the method to pursue our philosophical aims. This sentence is also weird: > The 'economics' behind it are completely misguided and appear to be based on the notion that taking power away from powerful entities and distributing amongst individuals will remove the problems associated with capitalist systems. So you're arguing that consolidating power by removing it from the masses is a better alternative? It's not that distributing power solves problems, it's that distributing power is a necessary precursor to solving problems. You apparently disagree with that premise? I said that it may have critical flaws not that it does. I'm trying to communicate uncertainty. I believe Bitcoin has a solid foundation but I could be wrong so I'm trying to leave room open for debate and to be open to new information that could prove me wrong. Bitcoin is also an evolving story, with usability issues and scaling issues that complicate discussions. The fact that dogma is associated with it is kind of irrelevant. I guess you focus on it so much because it's dogma you disagree with? GNU is steeped in dogma. The US constitution is steeped in dogma. The mere fact that dogma is present is not the sole indicator of validity of an idea. Bitcoin was a specific and evolutionary response to what was perceived as a failing system. Your statements get pretty hyperbolic. I'm not sure it's relevant, helpful or valid to compare Bitcoin to eugenics or atrocities committed by Russia on it's citizenship.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  > The "philosophical" motivation You misunderstand. If I develop a technology because I want society to be able survive a nuclear attack by making a robust network that has extra effects like enabling instant communication between disparate entities, that is a benefit. If I develop a technology that replaces in-place infrastructure like school buildings with nuclear-proof bomb shelters at great cost and by removing the schools and making children homeschool because I think that any ill-effects caused by disrupting society are worth it in order to safeguard humanity from a nuclear attack that I believe is coming -- well that all depends on whether I am right about my founding belief, isn't it? If there is no nuclear attack and we lose critical infrastructure because I had a political, unprovable belief, then we seriously messed up. I think you know that what the difference is between ancillary benefits because of planning and destructive effects because 'the ends justify the means' especially when the 'ends' ever happening are highly disputed and the 'means' haven't even been proven to work in any sense at all to produce them. > So you're arguing that consolidating power by removing it from the masses is a better alternative? It's not that distributing power solves problems, it's that distributing power is a necessary precursor to solving problems. You apparently disagree with that premise? You are better than this. Please don't disrespect your position by relying on loaded questions and strawmen. What I am arguing for is not disrupting existing power structures that society relies on because you think it would be better off without them and that they are unfair. Especially when your replacement is unproven and it seems reasonable and sounds good on paper until you play it through logically and see that it ignores basic tenets of established processes of modern societies -- like we need to be able for a world-wide payment system to be able to scale and not destroy the planet and eat up a large portion of our energy resources if and when it is trying to do so. > I said that it may have critical flaws not that it does. I misread you then, but that is probably because I contend that it does. > I believe Bitcoin has a solid foundation You have every right to believe that, and I have every right to tell you that you are wrong and that the debate is only between people who want Bitcoin to be a solution to something it cannot do (fix inequality or really anything that it is advocated for), people who want to use Bitcoin to redistribute wealth to themselves and their friends, and people who want the former group to snap out of it and use their effort to work on productive solutions and for the latter group to be investigated for crimes and if found guilty sent to prison. > The fact that dogma is associated with it is kind of irrelevant. Not when you come to terms with the fact that looking for evidence for something you already believe and discarding that which does not fit is something that is extremely harmful to society and prevented and reverted progress for unknown generations of people as evidenced by the dark ages in Europe and the regression of the middle East from world leaders in sciences and technology to war-torn wastelands. > Bitcoin was a specific and evolutionary response Evolution does not mean better -- it means more effective. Capitalism is about distributing resources from the ground to production to consumption and conversion into capital. Moving capital from people with little power to people with more power is actually more efficient when you remove regulations and societal prohibitions on deception, fraud, and usury. Bitcoin is great at that.

abetusk 4y ago

It's a weird distinction you make. To say that it's a philosophical motivation is ignoring motivation of a lot of innovation and kind of beside the point. The "philosophy" of the internet was to build a network that would be resilient against a nuclear attack yet, because of those motivations and in spite of that cynical outlook, the internet was created that was robust and flexible. The "philosophical" motivation behind cryptography is privacy. The "philosophical" motivation behind medical research is to improve peoples quality of life. Science is the method to pursue our philosophical aims. This sentence is also weird: > The 'economics' behind it are completely misguided and appear to be based on the notion that taking power away from powerful entities and distributing amongst individuals will remove the problems associated with capitalist systems. So you're arguing that consolidating power by removing it from the masses is a better alternative? It's not that distributing power solves problems, it's that distributing power is a necessary precursor to solving problems. You apparently disagree with that premise? I said that it may have critical flaws not that it does. I'm trying to communicate uncertainty. I believe Bitcoin has a solid foundation but I could be wrong so I'm trying to leave room open for debate and to be open to new information that could prove me wrong. Bitcoin is also an evolving story, with usability issues and scaling issues that complicate discussions. The fact that dogma is associated with it is kind of irrelevant. I guess you focus on it so much because it's dogma you disagree with? GNU is steeped in dogma. The US constitution is steeped in dogma. The mere fact that dogma is present is not the sole indicator of validity of an idea. Bitcoin was a specific and evolutionary response to what was perceived as a failing system. Your statements get pretty hyperbolic. I'm not sure it's relevant, helpful or valid to compare Bitcoin to eugenics or atrocities committed by Russia on it's citizenship.

Eisenstein 4y ago
> The "philosophical" motivation You misunderstand. If I develop a technology because I want society to be able survive a nuclear attack by making a robust network that has extra effects like enabling instant communication between disparate entities, that is a benefit. If I develop a technology that replaces in-place infrastructure like school buildings with nuclear-proof bomb shelters at great cost and by removing the schools and making children homeschool because I think that any ill-effects caused by disrupting society are worth it in order to safeguard humanity from a nuclear attack that I believe is coming -- well that all depends on whether I am right about my founding belief, isn't it? If there is no nuclear attack and we lose critical infrastructure because I had a political, unprovable belief, then we seriously messed up. I think you know that what the difference is between ancillary benefits because of planning and destructive effects because 'the ends justify the means' especially when the 'ends' ever happening are highly disputed and the 'means' haven't even been proven to work in any sense at all to produce them. > So you're arguing that consolidating power by removing it from the masses is a better alternative? It's not that distributing power solves problems, it's that distributing power is a necessary precursor to solving problems. You apparently disagree with that premise? You are better than this. Please don't disrespect your position by relying on loaded questions and strawmen. What I am arguing for is not disrupting existing power structures that society relies on because you think it would be better off without them and that they are unfair. Especially when your replacement is unproven and it seems reasonable and sounds good on paper until you play it through logically and see that it ignores basic tenets of established processes of modern societies -- like we need to be able for a world-wide payment system to be able to scale and not destroy the planet and eat up a large portion of our energy resources if and when it is trying to do so. > I said that it may have critical flaws not that it does. I misread you then, but that is probably because I contend that it does. > I believe Bitcoin has a solid foundation You have every right to believe that, and I have every right to tell you that you are wrong and that the debate is only between people who want Bitcoin to be a solution to something it cannot do (fix inequality or really anything that it is advocated for), people who want to use Bitcoin to redistribute wealth to themselves and their friends, and people who want the former group to snap out of it and use their effort to work on productive solutions and for the latter group to be investigated for crimes and if found guilty sent to prison. > The fact that dogma is associated with it is kind of irrelevant. Not when you come to terms with the fact that looking for evidence for something you already believe and discarding that which does not fit is something that is extremely harmful to society and prevented and reverted progress for unknown generations of people as evidenced by the dark ages in Europe and the regression of the middle East from world leaders in sciences and technology to war-torn wastelands. > Bitcoin was a specific and evolutionary response Evolution does not mean better -- it means more effective. Capitalism is about distributing resources from the ground to production to consumption and conversion into capital. Moving capital from people with little power to people with more power is actually more efficient when you remove regulations and societal prohibitions on deception, fraud, and usury. Bitcoin is great at that.