3 ms·

Indulge me here for a bit; but how does a multi-million dollar investment (raised from the same existing authoritarian framework) into Bitcoins make it anti-aut

Indulge me here for a bit; but how does a multi-million dollar investment (raised from the same existing authoritarian framework) into Bitcoins make it anti-authoritarian? Best case scenario is that this is a good hedge with decent risks, worst case scenario is that it is a worthwhile asset class to manipulate at a lower cost compared to other asset classes. EDIT: I don't agree with the larger tone of the article, but there are merit-worthy points that are made in it.

thecoffman 13y ago
I never claimed that Coinbase, the company you seem to be referring to, was anti-authoritarian: only that the idea of Bitcoin itself was. Coinbase is, as you said, very much a product of the existing framework. Bitcoin's creator satoshi wrote extensively about economics and politics and, to my understanding, its invention was explicitly anti-authoritarian.
- codelust 13y ago
  But you do recognize that people are buying Bitcoins using the day-to-day authoritarian tools, right? This is the equivalent of popularization of denims as a statement of rebellion from the 1970s; or the prevalence of Che Guevara tees in capitalist nations. Gives you that warm fuzzy feeling, but, in reality, it is no different from anything else.
  - thecoffman 13y ago
    Of course. As bitcoin isn't a viable currency and no one is really conducting btc->btc transactions, paying salaries in btc or anything else, the only method of utilizing them is going through the traditional, already existing banking infrastructure. The only part that I may slightly disagree with is that unlike the case of denim or Che shirts, there is at least a theoretical endgame that escapes the traditional framework. Note that I don't think bitcoin will reach that endgame, but I think that is a slight distinction.
  - codelust 13y ago
    Replying to the reply to my parent comment, since I seem to have reached HN's nesting limit. Forms of control are not always very direct. Let us, hypothetically, say the big state actors jump in to take control of 80% of the available bitcoins available, under various entities, they have control and authority and little accountability. This is already a reality in some equity markets, where retail investors are under 20% and rest of the players are institutional players. It will take much lesser than what it takes to move a large equity market, to move BT. There is a good reason why there is no global barter system. It simply won't work at that scale. A global barter system -- that would be truly subversive.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

thecoffman 13y ago

I never claimed that Coinbase, the company you seem to be referring to, was anti-authoritarian: only that the idea of Bitcoin itself was. Coinbase is, as you said, very much a product of the existing framework. Bitcoin's creator satoshi wrote extensively about economics and politics and, to my understanding, its invention was explicitly anti-authoritarian.

codelust 13y ago
But you do recognize that people are buying Bitcoins using the day-to-day authoritarian tools, right? This is the equivalent of popularization of denims as a statement of rebellion from the 1970s; or the prevalence of Che Guevara tees in capitalist nations. Gives you that warm fuzzy feeling, but, in reality, it is no different from anything else.
- thecoffman 13y ago
  Of course. As bitcoin isn't a viable currency and no one is really conducting btc->btc transactions, paying salaries in btc or anything else, the only method of utilizing them is going through the traditional, already existing banking infrastructure. The only part that I may slightly disagree with is that unlike the case of denim or Che shirts, there is at least a theoretical endgame that escapes the traditional framework. Note that I don't think bitcoin will reach that endgame, but I think that is a slight distinction.
- codelust 13y ago
  Replying to the reply to my parent comment, since I seem to have reached HN's nesting limit. Forms of control are not always very direct. Let us, hypothetically, say the big state actors jump in to take control of 80% of the available bitcoins available, under various entities, they have control and authority and little accountability. This is already a reality in some equity markets, where retail investors are under 20% and rest of the players are institutional players. It will take much lesser than what it takes to move a large equity market, to move BT. There is a good reason why there is no global barter system. It simply won't work at that scale. A global barter system -- that would be truly subversive.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]