9 ms·

Stross's disdain for bitcoin is existentially disappointing to me. The man wrote the first book I read where distributed autonomous corporations transacted on t

by ericb 13y ago

Stross's disdain for bitcoin is existentially disappointing to me. The man wrote the first book I read where distributed autonomous corporations transacted on their own behalf. The idea of python based corporations and legal denial of service attacks blew my mind. Bitcoin is in some ways, the realization of that dream. But Stross is so dismissive of it--no points for trying. His disdain seems to be on the basis that Bitcoin is deflationary, but I don't think that's an issue for 2 reasons. Primarily, deflationary assets can exist side by side with inflationary ones with no problem. The existence of gold does not cause everyone to abandon fiat. I would argue the deflationary aspect is an elegant game theoretical solution to the bootstrapping problem and gaining adoption in a double-sided market. Secondarily, if you think of Bitcoin as a money transmission protocol, a lossy protocol would be a lousy protocol. If the argument is about intrinsic value, a Bitcoin is a token that allows you to transact on the Bitcoin network and that is where it derives its value from.

JulianMorrison 13y ago
(Assuming you mean Accelerando) You do realize that was a nightmare, not a dream? Those autonomous corporations are the antagonists.
- randallsquared 13y ago
  Interestingly, I also didn't remember that point. The autonomous corporations (and the lobsters) are pretty much the only detail I remember from _Accelerando_, and the bit about them being the villain was lost.
  - pkinsky 13y ago
    They weren't villains. Accelerando portrayed the rise of autonomous corporations as something akin to the Great Oxygenation Event, with human society (and humanity) playing the part of the previous anaerobic ecosystem.
- ericb 13y ago
  I didn't take the idea of an autonomous corporation as inherently bad, but maybe I should have. A nightmare is just a flavor of dream--it is still a dream.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    > A nightmare is just a flavor of dream--it is still a dream. You must be overjoyed with the way things are going. A bit more push and we'll reach an Orwellian "dream".
    - ericb 13y ago
      I think people are misreading what I meant. We are already in a horrible dystopian nightmare. We are way past what Orwell feared. My point is that this technology could cut either way. Imagine instead of mtgox we had a distributed exchange running open source code we could verify. Suddenly autonomous corporations seem less scary, at least to me.
      - mercurial 13y ago
        The metal boot on your face may be powered by open source, but it's still a metal boot. It's not really a technological problem, it's a social and political issue.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
mercurial 13y ago
> Stross's disdain for bitcoin is existentially disappointing to me. The man wrote the first book I read where distributed autonomous corporations transacted on their own behalf. The idea of python based corporations and legal denial of service attacks blew my mind. I wouldn't read "Accelerando" as some kind of utopia, considering the eventual outcome. > His disdain seems to be on the basis that Bitcoin is deflationary I think cstross' problem with Bitcoin stems from exactly the same things that libertarians find so great about it: it's not taxed and nobody is in command (no monetary policy). The fact that a major actor turned out to be incompetent highlights another area in which bitcoin is deficient: it lacks regulation (though I'll agree that the real-life banking world could use much tougher regulation and enforcement of existing rules).
- icebraining 13y ago
  The counterargument to that is that when the regulation itself is incompetent - and there's plenty of political incentives for that - you're worse off that with non-central incompetent actors, which are less likely to have the power to screw the whole system.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    On the other hand, there is a much greater incentive to improve regulations (eg, to separate retail banking activities) than to trust incompetents with your money, especially when you consider that the central actor also provides essential infrastructures such as an education system, roads, public safety and social welfare. You don't want the clowns running Mt Gox to design the next plane you're going to take.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      I'm not sure if you're using the word "incentive" to mean the same thing as I am. You don't want the clowns running Mt Gox to design the next plane you're going to take. Nobody wants that; the question is why, considering the history of the financial system since the US central bank was created (the Great Depression, the S&L crisis, the 2008 crisis, Maddoff, Enron, etc), what makes you think that having a centralized regulatory body avoids that problem?
maxerickson 13y ago
As money transmission goes, high volatility is probably worse than predictable value erosion.
- ericb 13y ago
  It is much easier and faster to empty a kiddy pool of half its water than to do so for a lake, or an ocean. If Bitcoin succeeds, this won't be a problem.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    Sure, especially if you include low volatility in the definition of success. My point was that predictability is the more important characteristic for value transmission, not trajectory.
sneak 13y ago
He is normally very good at forming reasoned arguments about things; his ongoing tirade against bitcoin seems far less focused on the facts and more on his anger about the whole thing and disdain for the stereotype of the average randroid bitcoin enthusiast (loathsome people, they are). At the moment, he's burning through his accumulated goodwill almost as fast as the central bankers he seems to love so much are printing money. It's disappointing and sad.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  You think there is a big overlap between the people who read his books, care about what he says on his blog and think he is way off base criticizing the monetary policy built into bitcoin?
- sentenza 13y ago
  Ahem. My take on it is that, in order to write Neptunes Brood, he had to learn a lot of actual macroeconomics and also learn about cryptocurrencies. He is now an opponent of Bitcoin because of the very real problems that the wide-spread adoption Bitcoin would entail. Maybe in the end it boils down to this: Either you believe that insight can be gained from what Economics has to offer, even though you always have to check the underlying arguments, due to the different schools of thought out there. Alternatively, you can wave it all away as needless nonsense and trust in the collective cognitive power of young men high on technology. Your choice.
higherpurpose 13y ago
> The man wrote the first book I read where distributed autonomous corporations transacted on their own behalf. The idea of python based corporations and legal denial of service attacks blew my mind. Charles Stross should love the idea of Ethereum, then: http://www.ethereum.org/ http://www.ethereum.org/ http://bitcoinmagazine.com/9671/ethereum-next-generation-cryptocurrency-decentralized-application-platform/ http://bitcoinmagazine.com/9671/ethereum-next-generation-cry... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dpjN3Mwps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dpjN3Mwps
beat 13y ago
Don't conduct business with entities practicing Economics 2.0 is all I got to say for that.

by ericb 13y ago

JulianMorrison 13y ago

(Assuming you mean Accelerando) You do realize that was a nightmare, not a dream? Those autonomous corporations are the antagonists.

randallsquared 13y ago
Interestingly, I also didn't remember that point. The autonomous corporations (and the lobsters) are pretty much the only detail I remember from _Accelerando_, and the bit about them being the villain was lost.
- pkinsky 13y ago
  They weren't villains. Accelerando portrayed the rise of autonomous corporations as something akin to the Great Oxygenation Event, with human society (and humanity) playing the part of the previous anaerobic ecosystem.
ericb 13y ago
I didn't take the idea of an autonomous corporation as inherently bad, but maybe I should have. A nightmare is just a flavor of dream--it is still a dream.
- mercurial 13y ago
  > A nightmare is just a flavor of dream--it is still a dream. You must be overjoyed with the way things are going. A bit more push and we'll reach an Orwellian "dream".
  - ericb 13y ago
    I think people are misreading what I meant. We are already in a horrible dystopian nightmare. We are way past what Orwell feared. My point is that this technology could cut either way. Imagine instead of mtgox we had a distributed exchange running open source code we could verify. Suddenly autonomous corporations seem less scary, at least to me.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      The metal boot on your face may be powered by open source, but it's still a metal boot. It's not really a technological problem, it's a social and political issue.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

mercurial 13y ago

> Stross's disdain for bitcoin is existentially disappointing to me. The man wrote the first book I read where distributed autonomous corporations transacted on their own behalf. The idea of python based corporations and legal denial of service attacks blew my mind. I wouldn't read "Accelerando" as some kind of utopia, considering the eventual outcome. > His disdain seems to be on the basis that Bitcoin is deflationary I think cstross' problem with Bitcoin stems from exactly the same things that libertarians find so great about it: it's not taxed and nobody is in command (no monetary policy). The fact that a major actor turned out to be incompetent highlights another area in which bitcoin is deficient: it lacks regulation (though I'll agree that the real-life banking world could use much tougher regulation and enforcement of existing rules).

icebraining 13y ago
The counterargument to that is that when the regulation itself is incompetent - and there's plenty of political incentives for that - you're worse off that with non-central incompetent actors, which are less likely to have the power to screw the whole system.
- mercurial 13y ago
  On the other hand, there is a much greater incentive to improve regulations (eg, to separate retail banking activities) than to trust incompetents with your money, especially when you consider that the central actor also provides essential infrastructures such as an education system, roads, public safety and social welfare. You don't want the clowns running Mt Gox to design the next plane you're going to take.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    I'm not sure if you're using the word "incentive" to mean the same thing as I am. You don't want the clowns running Mt Gox to design the next plane you're going to take. Nobody wants that; the question is why, considering the history of the financial system since the US central bank was created (the Great Depression, the S&L crisis, the 2008 crisis, Maddoff, Enron, etc), what makes you think that having a centralized regulatory body avoids that problem?

maxerickson 13y ago

As money transmission goes, high volatility is probably worse than predictable value erosion.

ericb 13y ago
It is much easier and faster to empty a kiddy pool of half its water than to do so for a lake, or an ocean. If Bitcoin succeeds, this won't be a problem.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Sure, especially if you include low volatility in the definition of success. My point was that predictability is the more important characteristic for value transmission, not trajectory.

sneak 13y ago

He is normally very good at forming reasoned arguments about things; his ongoing tirade against bitcoin seems far less focused on the facts and more on his anger about the whole thing and disdain for the stereotype of the average randroid bitcoin enthusiast (loathsome people, they are). At the moment, he's burning through his accumulated goodwill almost as fast as the central bankers he seems to love so much are printing money. It's disappointing and sad.

maxerickson 13y ago
You think there is a big overlap between the people who read his books, care about what he says on his blog and think he is way off base criticizing the monetary policy built into bitcoin?
sentenza 13y ago
Ahem. My take on it is that, in order to write Neptunes Brood, he had to learn a lot of actual macroeconomics and also learn about cryptocurrencies. He is now an opponent of Bitcoin because of the very real problems that the wide-spread adoption Bitcoin would entail. Maybe in the end it boils down to this: Either you believe that insight can be gained from what Economics has to offer, even though you always have to check the underlying arguments, due to the different schools of thought out there. Alternatively, you can wave it all away as needless nonsense and trust in the collective cognitive power of young men high on technology. Your choice.

higherpurpose 13y ago

> The man wrote the first book I read where distributed autonomous corporations transacted on their own behalf. The idea of python based corporations and legal denial of service attacks blew my mind. Charles Stross should love the idea of Ethereum, then: http://www.ethereum.org/ http://www.ethereum.org/ http://bitcoinmagazine.com/9671/ethereum-next-generation-cryptocurrency-decentralized-application-platform/ http://bitcoinmagazine.com/9671/ethereum-next-generation-cry... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dpjN3Mwps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dpjN3Mwps

beat 13y ago

Don't conduct business with entities practicing Economics 2.0 is all I got to say for that.