5 ms·

That's hilarious, do you even realise what you're saying? You consider it a feature of a currency that there is a violent extortionate power engaged in parasiti

That's hilarious, do you even realise what you're saying? You consider it a feature of a currency that there is a violent extortionate power engaged in parasitism of the monetary base.

anigbrowl 14y ago
That's not what he said. Also, you seem to think that monetary bases are something that exist independently of government.
- etherael 14y ago
  Yes it is; There is no powerful entity (violent extortionate power) that taxes people (engaged in parasitism) and requires payment in bitcoin. (the monetary base in question) It's just in statist apologist clothing. Monetary bases exist on any money, whether that is government issued or otherwise, to insinuate otherwise is to imply that there is no money outside that issued by the state, and that has never been and is not the case. I don't expect you to agree, whenever I have noticed any comment from you it has without exception been in strident and shrill defense of the state, but just stating you think differently and using this as evidence for calling your opinion as fact proves precisely nothing.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    You have misunderstood the grandparent post. His point was that since states exist as a matter of fact and want to have their taxes paid, Bitcoin is less useful than currencies which are acceptable legal tender for that purpose. For one thing, you'll have to pay a small conversion premium on top of the debt you're servicing. I don't expect you to agree, whenever I have noticed any comment from you it has without exception been in strident and shrill defense of the state, but just stating you think differently and using this as evidence for calling your opinion as fact proves precisely nothing. You're calling me strident and shrill, when you're characterizing all government as violent and extortionate? OK, if it makes you feel better. Monetary bases that are not government created are essentially worth only their commodity value, because they lack any reliable institutional backing. In practice, this typically makes them rather inconvenient: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Special-Delivery.aspx http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Special-Delivery.aspx
    - etherael 14y ago
      > You have misunderstood the grandparent post. His point was that since states exist as a matter of fact and want to have their taxes paid, Bitcoin is less useful than currencies which are acceptable legal tender for that purpose. For one thing, you'll have to pay a small conversion premium on top of the debt you're servicing. No, I follow perfectly well, the mugger demands his due in a specific form of paper, therefore that specific form of paper is more valuable than one in which similar predation does not take place, that's precisely why I disagree that it's actually feature. > You're calling me strident and shrill, when you're characterizing all government as violent and extortionate? OK, if it makes you feel better. That's not a characterisation, it's a simple fact. Government is a monopoly of force, there are no governments in existence who do not use that monopoly of force for extortion. > Monetary bases that are not government created are essentially worth only their commodity value As opposed to absolutely nothing in the event of the failure of the backing state.
contingencies 14y ago
To be fair, it is a historically significant motivator in the adoption of new centralized currencies. On the balance, however, we are shifting away from that with globalization and the ridiculous logistical requirements of such an approach (eg. every new US president doesn't de-circulate, debase and re-issue USD.) These days, as long as you have liquidity that allows money to viably function as one or more of a medium of exchange ("settlement system"); a unit of account ("accountable asset"); and a store of value ("somewhere to stash accrued value"), then you're doing OK. Bitcoin has the former two properties and seems to be doing OK in the latter category despite volatility, despite relatively narrow acceptance. Digital currencies and settlement systems as a whole will undoubtedly continue the trend that Bitcoin has started; the genie is so far out of the bottle at this point it's almost entering the third-stage of truth: self-evidence.
- zanny 14y ago
  > To be fair, it is a historically significant motivator in the adoption of new centralized currencies. Historically, a new monetary base needed significant printing infrastructure, law enforcement to prevent its counterfeiting (if it is a paper and coin currency, which is effectively every currency ever) and you needed to artificially control its reproduction. That requires a government. That usually is associated with taxation. I think you are looking at the causal relationship in the wrong way. Old paper money required artificial limiters to prevent anyone from printing it and using it. With bitcoin, the trust system of the block chain means to "counterfeit" bitcoins you need as much computational power as a majority of the swarm.
  - contingencies 14y ago
    > to "counterfeit" bitcoins you need as much computational power as a majority of the swarm. Actually, to the same effect you could use a bug in bitcoind, control of the view-of-the-swarm (network access) by the processing merchant, an implementation issue, or a careful double spend. Bitcoin is exceptionally hard to implement well for merchants, particularly those with near real-time requirements, and it's not getting any easier.
Nursie 14y ago
"You consider it a feature of a currency that there is a violent extortionate power engaged in parasitism of the monetary base." If by that you mean a democratic government empowered to stabilise the currency via a variety of means, including supply inflation... Hell yes that's a feature.
- etherael 14y ago
  > If by that you mean a democratic government (violent extortionate power) empowered to stabilise the currency via a variety of means, including supply inflation (engaged in parasitism of the monetary base)... It's funny how many different ways there are to paint over the underlying unpleasant reality of the situation with pretty words designed to lend a veneer of legitimacy to the enterprise. It's almost like there's an uncomfortable underlying truth that many people would prefer you would not state in such a blunt fashion.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    No, what's funny is how differently people see the world. You see a violent extortionate power, I see a cooperative, democratic government. You see parasitism of the monetary base, I see an important stabilising role in the common currency that keeps the economy ticking. These are not words I use to gloss over "the underlying unpleasant reality", there is no "uncomfortable underlying truth that many people would prefer you would not state in such a blunt fashion". We genuinely have different views on these things. This is one of the things I find so fascinating (and childish) about internet libertarians and objectivists - they assume that everyone that doesn't agree with them is either actively evil, totally deluded, or just hasn't been exposed to their self-evidently correct way of thinking yet. I bet it never occurs to you that other people think about the very same things you do but can come to completely different conclusions?
    - etherael 14y ago
      No, as a matter of fact it simply never occurred to me that you might simply disagree thereby changing the underlying nature of reality in so doing. But I suppose I am not one for the acceptance that things are only what we label them with. If no differences can be iterated between one thing with a pretty label, say a democratic government for argument's sake, and another thing with an ugly label, say an organised crime ring with a byzantine structure designed to convey the perception of community support but which retains the core underlying features of being impossible not to participate in under threat of violence, parasitic and corrupt even by it's own rules; it just never occurred to me someone might truly be naive enough to honestly accept that the labels alone change the nature of the underlying labelled things. It's a fine trick if you can find enough suckers to pull it off I suppose.

That's hilarious, do you even realise what you're saying? You consider it a feature of a currency that there is a violent extortionate power engaged in parasitism of the monetary base.

anigbrowl 14y ago

That's not what he said. Also, you seem to think that monetary bases are something that exist independently of government.

etherael 14y ago
Yes it is; There is no powerful entity (violent extortionate power) that taxes people (engaged in parasitism) and requires payment in bitcoin. (the monetary base in question) It's just in statist apologist clothing. Monetary bases exist on any money, whether that is government issued or otherwise, to insinuate otherwise is to imply that there is no money outside that issued by the state, and that has never been and is not the case. I don't expect you to agree, whenever I have noticed any comment from you it has without exception been in strident and shrill defense of the state, but just stating you think differently and using this as evidence for calling your opinion as fact proves precisely nothing.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  You have misunderstood the grandparent post. His point was that since states exist as a matter of fact and want to have their taxes paid, Bitcoin is less useful than currencies which are acceptable legal tender for that purpose. For one thing, you'll have to pay a small conversion premium on top of the debt you're servicing. I don't expect you to agree, whenever I have noticed any comment from you it has without exception been in strident and shrill defense of the state, but just stating you think differently and using this as evidence for calling your opinion as fact proves precisely nothing. You're calling me strident and shrill, when you're characterizing all government as violent and extortionate? OK, if it makes you feel better. Monetary bases that are not government created are essentially worth only their commodity value, because they lack any reliable institutional backing. In practice, this typically makes them rather inconvenient: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Special-Delivery.aspx http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Special-Delivery.aspx
  - etherael 14y ago
    > You have misunderstood the grandparent post. His point was that since states exist as a matter of fact and want to have their taxes paid, Bitcoin is less useful than currencies which are acceptable legal tender for that purpose. For one thing, you'll have to pay a small conversion premium on top of the debt you're servicing. No, I follow perfectly well, the mugger demands his due in a specific form of paper, therefore that specific form of paper is more valuable than one in which similar predation does not take place, that's precisely why I disagree that it's actually feature. > You're calling me strident and shrill, when you're characterizing all government as violent and extortionate? OK, if it makes you feel better. That's not a characterisation, it's a simple fact. Government is a monopoly of force, there are no governments in existence who do not use that monopoly of force for extortion. > Monetary bases that are not government created are essentially worth only their commodity value As opposed to absolutely nothing in the event of the failure of the backing state.

contingencies 14y ago

To be fair, it is a historically significant motivator in the adoption of new centralized currencies. On the balance, however, we are shifting away from that with globalization and the ridiculous logistical requirements of such an approach (eg. every new US president doesn't de-circulate, debase and re-issue USD.) These days, as long as you have liquidity that allows money to viably function as one or more of a medium of exchange ("settlement system"); a unit of account ("accountable asset"); and a store of value ("somewhere to stash accrued value"), then you're doing OK. Bitcoin has the former two properties and seems to be doing OK in the latter category despite volatility, despite relatively narrow acceptance. Digital currencies and settlement systems as a whole will undoubtedly continue the trend that Bitcoin has started; the genie is so far out of the bottle at this point it's almost entering the third-stage of truth: self-evidence.

zanny 14y ago
> To be fair, it is a historically significant motivator in the adoption of new centralized currencies. Historically, a new monetary base needed significant printing infrastructure, law enforcement to prevent its counterfeiting (if it is a paper and coin currency, which is effectively every currency ever) and you needed to artificially control its reproduction. That requires a government. That usually is associated with taxation. I think you are looking at the causal relationship in the wrong way. Old paper money required artificial limiters to prevent anyone from printing it and using it. With bitcoin, the trust system of the block chain means to "counterfeit" bitcoins you need as much computational power as a majority of the swarm.
- contingencies 14y ago
  > to "counterfeit" bitcoins you need as much computational power as a majority of the swarm. Actually, to the same effect you could use a bug in bitcoind, control of the view-of-the-swarm (network access) by the processing merchant, an implementation issue, or a careful double spend. Bitcoin is exceptionally hard to implement well for merchants, particularly those with near real-time requirements, and it's not getting any easier.

Nursie 14y ago

"You consider it a feature of a currency that there is a violent extortionate power engaged in parasitism of the monetary base." If by that you mean a democratic government empowered to stabilise the currency via a variety of means, including supply inflation... Hell yes that's a feature.

etherael 14y ago
> If by that you mean a democratic government (violent extortionate power) empowered to stabilise the currency via a variety of means, including supply inflation (engaged in parasitism of the monetary base)... It's funny how many different ways there are to paint over the underlying unpleasant reality of the situation with pretty words designed to lend a veneer of legitimacy to the enterprise. It's almost like there's an uncomfortable underlying truth that many people would prefer you would not state in such a blunt fashion.
- Nursie 14y ago
  No, what's funny is how differently people see the world. You see a violent extortionate power, I see a cooperative, democratic government. You see parasitism of the monetary base, I see an important stabilising role in the common currency that keeps the economy ticking. These are not words I use to gloss over "the underlying unpleasant reality", there is no "uncomfortable underlying truth that many people would prefer you would not state in such a blunt fashion". We genuinely have different views on these things. This is one of the things I find so fascinating (and childish) about internet libertarians and objectivists - they assume that everyone that doesn't agree with them is either actively evil, totally deluded, or just hasn't been exposed to their self-evidently correct way of thinking yet. I bet it never occurs to you that other people think about the very same things you do but can come to completely different conclusions?
  - etherael 14y ago
    No, as a matter of fact it simply never occurred to me that you might simply disagree thereby changing the underlying nature of reality in so doing. But I suppose I am not one for the acceptance that things are only what we label them with. If no differences can be iterated between one thing with a pretty label, say a democratic government for argument's sake, and another thing with an ugly label, say an organised crime ring with a byzantine structure designed to convey the perception of community support but which retains the core underlying features of being impossible not to participate in under threat of violence, parasitic and corrupt even by it's own rules; it just never occurred to me someone might truly be naive enough to honestly accept that the labels alone change the nature of the underlying labelled things. It's a fine trick if you can find enough suckers to pull it off I suppose.