4 ms·

I came across this last night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fvSYT7vhQY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fvSYT7vhQY (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=545

by niggler 14y ago

I came across this last night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fvSYT7vhQY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fvSYT7vhQY (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5459304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5459304) The phrase that really resonated with me was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fvSYT7vhQY#t=404s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fvSYT7vhQY#t=404s : "When a few get something for nothing, at some point in a zero-sum game most will get nothing for something". That point may not happen anytime soon, but I think that's a very legitimate concern.

feral 14y ago
That phrase isn't even logically valid. But lets say we accept its argument anyway, is it really applicable here? Would you really argue that the creation of a new cryptocurrency is a zero-sum event? Couldn't it instead be the case that enormous new wealth is created due to the existence of a new payment infrastructure, and that the people who get something are capturing some of this new wealth? I'm not saying Bitcoin is a sure thing by any means; just that its flawed to evaluate the wealth apparently coming from it as a zero-sum process.
- pjscott 14y ago
  The situation is analogous to a mint for a traditional currency: it costs money to print money, and so some people are getting paid just to maintain the currency. That's fine, though, because they're creating economic value for the users of that currency. It's similar for the people who "get something for nothing" by mining bitcoins: they're getting paid for making the proof-of-work chain function correctly, and for distributing the initial bitcoin supply in a way that's not based on some central authority handing out bitcoins.
gyom 14y ago
Calling it a zero-sum game makes it sound like some people are exploiting others. You can make the same argument with gold by saying that, if everybody stopped caring about gold on the same day, then everybody owning gold would be big losers in the zero-sum game of gold. Moreover, the argument that the cited video makes about criminals using the currency (i.e. "honor among thieves" doesn't exist) is fundamentally at odds with the concept of the infinitely iterated prisoner's dilemma. That's why the whole concept of "reputation" envolved (in Nature and online). Someone with 98.7% positive feedback might screw you to save $50, but doing so would not be beneficial in the long run.

by niggler 14y ago

feral 14y ago

That phrase isn't even logically valid. But lets say we accept its argument anyway, is it really applicable here? Would you really argue that the creation of a new cryptocurrency is a zero-sum event? Couldn't it instead be the case that enormous new wealth is created due to the existence of a new payment infrastructure, and that the people who get something are capturing some of this new wealth? I'm not saying Bitcoin is a sure thing by any means; just that its flawed to evaluate the wealth apparently coming from it as a zero-sum process.

pjscott 14y ago
The situation is analogous to a mint for a traditional currency: it costs money to print money, and so some people are getting paid just to maintain the currency. That's fine, though, because they're creating economic value for the users of that currency. It's similar for the people who "get something for nothing" by mining bitcoins: they're getting paid for making the proof-of-work chain function correctly, and for distributing the initial bitcoin supply in a way that's not based on some central authority handing out bitcoins.

gyom 14y ago

Calling it a zero-sum game makes it sound like some people are exploiting others. You can make the same argument with gold by saying that, if everybody stopped caring about gold on the same day, then everybody owning gold would be big losers in the zero-sum game of gold. Moreover, the argument that the cited video makes about criminals using the currency (i.e. "honor among thieves" doesn't exist) is fundamentally at odds with the concept of the infinitely iterated prisoner's dilemma. That's why the whole concept of "reputation" envolved (in Nature and online). Someone with 98.7% positive feedback might screw you to save $50, but doing so would not be beneficial in the long run.