5 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

> 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?
    - mercurial 13y ago
      It's a good question, and it's impossible to answer with historical examples of well-developed capitalist countries without a central bank.
- krapp 13y ago
  The counter-counter argument is that without regulation, there's nothing to stop incompetent actors from getting enough power to screw the whole system, and no real failsafe if they do. Regulation doesn't have to be incompetent.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    The counter-counter argument is that without regulation, there's nothing to stop incompetent actors from getting enough power to screw the whole system, and no real failsafe if they do. That's a claim, but is it backed by historical evidence? Because the screwups of the regulatory bodies certainly are. A problem with that argument is that people point out financial systems with central banks, plenty of subsidies, etc and claim "that's an unregulated system" because it lacks the regulations they find important, when in reality they're aren't. Regulation doesn't have to be incompetent. Well, the authors of the recent book Fragile by Design claim that in a populist system like the US, that's almost inevitable.
    - krapp 13y ago
      If the existence of corruption and incompetence are arguments for abandoning centralized systems, then why is the existence of corruption and incompetence in the Bitcoin community not an adequate argument against the unregulated model?
      - icebraining 13y ago
        Not just the existence of corruption and incompetence; I don't think anyone claims that you can completely avoid that. The claim is just that the unregulated systems might be "less bad", that is, less prone to major crisis due to the aforementioned corruption and incompetence. Personally, I don't hold great faith in the future of Bitcoin as a currency, but so what? It's an experiment! A chance to actually try economic theories that are impossible to test in the real world. I just hope the know-it-all conservative curmudgeons don't kill it before it has a decent chance.
        13y ago
shadowmint 13y ago
This. I was quite disappointed by http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-want-bitcoin-to-die-in-a.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-wa... You don't like bitcoin and wish it would go away. Ok, fair enough. ...but that's not a conversation. That's the end of a conversation. Of all people I would have expected Stross (who've I've met in person and found to be quite awesome) would take the 'here's how it could be better, lets talk about it' stance, rather than 'this thing is bad and should just go away forever'. You know, fair enough. You have a firm opinion and you're sticking to it. I respect that; but it's a boring conversation when you're not even willing to listen to the other side and talk about it.
- mercurial 13y ago
  > You know, fair enough. You have a firm opinion and you're sticking to it. I respect that; but it's a boring conversation when you're not even willing to listen to the other side and talk about it. It's his blog, it's perfectly appropriate for him to rant about things. Sometimes, you're not really interested in conversation.
- rosser 13y ago
  ...but that's not a conversation. That's the end of a conversation. Which is different from everyone else on the subject of BTC ... how, again? Everyone seems to have their mind made up about Bitcoin, and to think that anyone whose opinion differs from their own is shortsighted, or irrationally optimistic, or idiotically conservative, or, or, or. Practically no-one seems willing to have an actual dialogue about the subject, and instead approaches these threads from a perspective of defending their established — entrenched — position. Why should Charlie be any different?
  - wpietri 13y ago
    Indeed, I think his la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you position is a reaction to the incredible wave of irrational exuberance around BitCoin. That's certainly how I feel about it. I'm sure there are people capable having a rational, nuanced discussion about it. But 99.7% of what I see online is glibertarians, gold bugs, utopians, tulip bulb salesmen, tinfoil-hat survivalists, people dreaming of the singularity with one hand in their pants, sociopaths, wannabe-drug lords, day-trader driftwood, sexist creeps [1], and people who make Richard Stallman look reasonable and well-groomed. I'm hoping that this crash is severe enough to get us to the Trough of Disillusionment [2], so we can find out if there's a pony in there somewhere [3]. But honestly, I doubt it. [1] http://www.ariannasimpson.com/this-is-what-its-like-to-be-a-woman-at-a-bitcoin-meetup/ http://www.ariannasimpson.com/this-is-what-its-like-to-be-a-... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle [3] http://judymintz.com/2012/12/04/theres-got-to-be-a-pony-somewhere/ http://judymintz.com/2012/12/04/theres-got-to-be-a-pony-some...
throwaway420 13y ago
Look at how hard it is to get a tiny twist on an old idea like AirBnB or Uber legal in society. These are great things that the existing institutions that benefit from government enforced monopolies try and use the law to smother. I view the lack of regulation as a feature, not a bug. Bitcoin is an arena for innovation and new ideas for micro transactions and programmable contracts and probably lots of decentralized things nobody has thought of yet. Were it left to the existing financial regulators and institution, the pace of innovation would be glacial and they would prevent most new ideas from coming into fruition. Why would they want innovation? They have an effective monopoly and use regulations to prevent competition. And these companies know that if they take major risks and nearly kill themselves, that they'll almost certainly be bailed out by a magic bag of free money. It's refreshing to see a financial system with no bailouts for companies that crash and burn.
- eropple 13y ago
  AirBnB is not a "tiny twist on an old idea." AirBnB makes much of its business on the counter-contractual use of other people's property. They're a predatory company and I wish them ill. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is just a land where P. T. Barnum is endlessly proven right. Nobody gets hurt who isn't dumb enough to play.
  - throwaway420 13y ago
    > AirBnB is not a "tiny twist on an old idea." AirBnB makes much of its business on the counter-contractual use of other people's property. They're a predatory company and I wish them ill. Insofar as an apartment renter is violating a rental agreement to effectively lease out their apartment to a third party without permission, I can see your point. But this isn't always the case. I'm open to hearing about your opinion, but not sure how AirBnB can really be considered a predatory company at any rate.
    - eropple 13y ago
      I am extremely skeptical that their business wouldn't work without people breaking leases. And I am certain they know it.

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?
  - mercurial 13y ago
    It's a good question, and it's impossible to answer with historical examples of well-developed capitalist countries without a central bank.
krapp 13y ago
The counter-counter argument is that without regulation, there's nothing to stop incompetent actors from getting enough power to screw the whole system, and no real failsafe if they do. Regulation doesn't have to be incompetent.
- icebraining 13y ago
  The counter-counter argument is that without regulation, there's nothing to stop incompetent actors from getting enough power to screw the whole system, and no real failsafe if they do. That's a claim, but is it backed by historical evidence? Because the screwups of the regulatory bodies certainly are. A problem with that argument is that people point out financial systems with central banks, plenty of subsidies, etc and claim "that's an unregulated system" because it lacks the regulations they find important, when in reality they're aren't. Regulation doesn't have to be incompetent. Well, the authors of the recent book Fragile by Design claim that in a populist system like the US, that's almost inevitable.
  - krapp 13y ago
    If the existence of corruption and incompetence are arguments for abandoning centralized systems, then why is the existence of corruption and incompetence in the Bitcoin community not an adequate argument against the unregulated model?
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Not just the existence of corruption and incompetence; I don't think anyone claims that you can completely avoid that. The claim is just that the unregulated systems might be "less bad", that is, less prone to major crisis due to the aforementioned corruption and incompetence. Personally, I don't hold great faith in the future of Bitcoin as a currency, but so what? It's an experiment! A chance to actually try economic theories that are impossible to test in the real world. I just hope the know-it-all conservative curmudgeons don't kill it before it has a decent chance.
      - 13y ago

shadowmint 13y ago

This. I was quite disappointed by http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-want-bitcoin-to-die-in-a.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-wa... You don't like bitcoin and wish it would go away. Ok, fair enough. ...but that's not a conversation. That's the end of a conversation. Of all people I would have expected Stross (who've I've met in person and found to be quite awesome) would take the 'here's how it could be better, lets talk about it' stance, rather than 'this thing is bad and should just go away forever'. You know, fair enough. You have a firm opinion and you're sticking to it. I respect that; but it's a boring conversation when you're not even willing to listen to the other side and talk about it.

mercurial 13y ago
> You know, fair enough. You have a firm opinion and you're sticking to it. I respect that; but it's a boring conversation when you're not even willing to listen to the other side and talk about it. It's his blog, it's perfectly appropriate for him to rant about things. Sometimes, you're not really interested in conversation.
rosser 13y ago
...but that's not a conversation. That's the end of a conversation. Which is different from everyone else on the subject of BTC ... how, again? Everyone seems to have their mind made up about Bitcoin, and to think that anyone whose opinion differs from their own is shortsighted, or irrationally optimistic, or idiotically conservative, or, or, or. Practically no-one seems willing to have an actual dialogue about the subject, and instead approaches these threads from a perspective of defending their established — entrenched — position. Why should Charlie be any different?
- wpietri 13y ago
  Indeed, I think his la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you position is a reaction to the incredible wave of irrational exuberance around BitCoin. That's certainly how I feel about it. I'm sure there are people capable having a rational, nuanced discussion about it. But 99.7% of what I see online is glibertarians, gold bugs, utopians, tulip bulb salesmen, tinfoil-hat survivalists, people dreaming of the singularity with one hand in their pants, sociopaths, wannabe-drug lords, day-trader driftwood, sexist creeps [1], and people who make Richard Stallman look reasonable and well-groomed. I'm hoping that this crash is severe enough to get us to the Trough of Disillusionment [2], so we can find out if there's a pony in there somewhere [3]. But honestly, I doubt it. [1] http://www.ariannasimpson.com/this-is-what-its-like-to-be-a-woman-at-a-bitcoin-meetup/ http://www.ariannasimpson.com/this-is-what-its-like-to-be-a-... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle [3] http://judymintz.com/2012/12/04/theres-got-to-be-a-pony-somewhere/ http://judymintz.com/2012/12/04/theres-got-to-be-a-pony-some...

throwaway420 13y ago

Look at how hard it is to get a tiny twist on an old idea like AirBnB or Uber legal in society. These are great things that the existing institutions that benefit from government enforced monopolies try and use the law to smother. I view the lack of regulation as a feature, not a bug. Bitcoin is an arena for innovation and new ideas for micro transactions and programmable contracts and probably lots of decentralized things nobody has thought of yet. Were it left to the existing financial regulators and institution, the pace of innovation would be glacial and they would prevent most new ideas from coming into fruition. Why would they want innovation? They have an effective monopoly and use regulations to prevent competition. And these companies know that if they take major risks and nearly kill themselves, that they'll almost certainly be bailed out by a magic bag of free money. It's refreshing to see a financial system with no bailouts for companies that crash and burn.

eropple 13y ago
AirBnB is not a "tiny twist on an old idea." AirBnB makes much of its business on the counter-contractual use of other people's property. They're a predatory company and I wish them ill. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is just a land where P. T. Barnum is endlessly proven right. Nobody gets hurt who isn't dumb enough to play.
- throwaway420 13y ago
  > AirBnB is not a "tiny twist on an old idea." AirBnB makes much of its business on the counter-contractual use of other people's property. They're a predatory company and I wish them ill. Insofar as an apartment renter is violating a rental agreement to effectively lease out their apartment to a third party without permission, I can see your point. But this isn't always the case. I'm open to hearing about your opinion, but not sure how AirBnB can really be considered a predatory company at any rate.
  - eropple 13y ago
    I am extremely skeptical that their business wouldn't work without people breaking leases. And I am certain they know it.