3 ms·
Calling BitCoin "privatized" misunderstands its nature. While it's true that there are large players invested, crypto-currencies are protocols, and cannot (reli
by lukifer 13y ago
Calling BitCoin "privatized" misunderstands its nature. While it's true that there are large players invested, crypto-currencies are protocols, and cannot (reliably) be owned or controlled any more than TCP/IP or HTML.
Meanwhile, fiat currency (as we know it) is not merely a tool of state; it is a command-and-control tool of the government-industrial complex, a creation not only of the U.S. tax code, but by massive private banking institutions who steal value from the public through complicated mathematics.
I actually quite like Graeber and his ideas; I think crypto-currencies come closer to fulfilling "an intricate structure of social relationships and spiritual beliefs" than the U.S. dollar ever could.
- john_b 13y agoThe whole article (willfully?) misunderstood Bitcoin's nature. It even implied that Bitcoins are issued by Satoshi himself. I think it's good to take a critical look at Bitcoin when the price rises so rapidly, but this article is more like a political hit piece than anything with economic merit.
- waps 13y agoAccording to Shamir's paper, that's 95% accurate. Theoretically you're right. Practically, you're wrong.