4 ms·

at times like this i wish the supporters of bitcoin hadn't wedded themselves so thoroughly to libertarian ideology. they've turned this into a ideological debat

by Aqueous 13y ago

at times like this i wish the supporters of bitcoin hadn't wedded themselves so thoroughly to libertarian ideology. they've turned this into a ideological debate when in fact it should just be treated like a cool new technology that could benefit everyone. i say this as someone who thinks bitcoin has the power to change the world but also believes that markets need regulation in order to prevent massive destruction due to volatility. that said roubini is completely wrong about btc, just like krugman, and both need to change their thinking about what constitutes a currency.

pessimizer 13y ago
>that said roubini is completely wrong about btc, just like krugman, and both need to change their thinking about what constitutes a currency. Care to explain why, or is this just your self-affirmation mantra?
- Aqueous 13y ago
  No need to be snarky. BitCoin is clearly already being used as a currency - it is being used in exchange for goods and services as a form of liquidity. This means it is a store of value, it is a medium of exchange, and while it isn't yet a unit of account - as others have said here, this seems to just be a matter of adoption. Of course things aare priced in dollar when the dollar remains the world reserve currency. This idea that a currency needs all features of historical currencies to be considered a currency is ridiculous, and doesn't accommodate a "start-up" currency which is something we've never seen before - at least not globally. At the very least the definition of currency ought to change to something like: "A currency possesses at least 3 out of 5 of these qualities." None of these qualities are permanent, unchanging qualities. That seems to be the other critical mistake economists are making - failing to see the forest for the trees. That comes from an institutional mindset where only governments (or government-connected organizations) can issue currency and so currency has the aura of permanence.
  - joepie91_ 13y ago
    > At the very least the definition of currency ought to change to something like: "A currency possesses at least 3 out of 5 of these qualities. Actually, if you look at the definition of "currency" from various sources, you'll come across stuff like this: "1. Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/currency http://www.thefreedictionary.com/currency) ... and for "money": "1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Money http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Money) The problem doesn't seem to be that the definition is incorrect; the problem seems to be that people assume their own definition based on what they're used to, rather than adhering to something you'd find in a dictionary - commonly the motivation appears to be using "it's not a currency" as a (fallacious) reason to express their dislike of something like Bitcoin.
joepie91_ 13y ago
> "at times like this i wish the supporters of bitcoin hadn't wedded themselves so thoroughly to libertarian ideology." "Bitcoin supporters" are not a homogenous group.
- Aqueous 13y ago
  Exactly, as evidenced by individuals such as myself. But there is a hardcore contingent of libertarians who are turning this into a crusade against govt regulation, and I, as a BitCoin supporter myself, do not want to be painted by that brush. It makes it easier to attack politically, when we should be discussing BitCoin with technological concerns and on its technological merits so that people aren't blinded by politics when considering it.
  - joepie91_ 13y ago
    Then a good start would probably be to not generalize "Bitcoin supporters" yourself :) On a more serious note, there might be a group of 'supporters' who are 'libertarians', but the reality is that their existence or notoriety really don't matter all that much. If somebody seeks to generalize to discredit Bitcoin, then they will do so anyway - whether it's one libertarian or a million, and whether they're 'hardcore' or hardly noticeable. As long as these people do not try to take an "official spokesperson" type of position with their personal ideology, they can be safely ignored if you do not agree with their point of view. That's the beautiful thing about Bitcoin: it exists, whether you want it or not... and what somebody elses political views are does not change whether it exists or how it works :)
    - Aqueous 13y ago
      I guess the problem is I seem to be seriously outnumbered by the libertarian contingent, who seem to be the most vocal, outspoken about it. If I knew of more "liberal-tarian" supporters of BitCoin I would be more hesitant to generalize. It is true that BitCoin can survive on its technological underpinnings alone. But I think we should change the way we are conversing about it so that we don't immediately make enemies of a large group that has an ideological stake in the govt being the only authority for any and all currency. I think this becomes a real danger when we begin to legislate on something. The nature of politics is that it frequently conceals the truth. Otherwise intelligent people are completely unable to see the best qualities of something if they feel it goes against their political ideology.

by Aqueous 13y ago

pessimizer 13y ago

>that said roubini is completely wrong about btc, just like krugman, and both need to change their thinking about what constitutes a currency. Care to explain why, or is this just your self-affirmation mantra?

Aqueous 13y ago
No need to be snarky. BitCoin is clearly already being used as a currency - it is being used in exchange for goods and services as a form of liquidity. This means it is a store of value, it is a medium of exchange, and while it isn't yet a unit of account - as others have said here, this seems to just be a matter of adoption. Of course things aare priced in dollar when the dollar remains the world reserve currency. This idea that a currency needs all features of historical currencies to be considered a currency is ridiculous, and doesn't accommodate a "start-up" currency which is something we've never seen before - at least not globally. At the very least the definition of currency ought to change to something like: "A currency possesses at least 3 out of 5 of these qualities." None of these qualities are permanent, unchanging qualities. That seems to be the other critical mistake economists are making - failing to see the forest for the trees. That comes from an institutional mindset where only governments (or government-connected organizations) can issue currency and so currency has the aura of permanence.
- joepie91_ 13y ago
  > At the very least the definition of currency ought to change to something like: "A currency possesses at least 3 out of 5 of these qualities. Actually, if you look at the definition of "currency" from various sources, you'll come across stuff like this: "1. Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/currency http://www.thefreedictionary.com/currency) ... and for "money": "1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Money http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Money) The problem doesn't seem to be that the definition is incorrect; the problem seems to be that people assume their own definition based on what they're used to, rather than adhering to something you'd find in a dictionary - commonly the motivation appears to be using "it's not a currency" as a (fallacious) reason to express their dislike of something like Bitcoin.

joepie91_ 13y ago

> "at times like this i wish the supporters of bitcoin hadn't wedded themselves so thoroughly to libertarian ideology." "Bitcoin supporters" are not a homogenous group.

Aqueous 13y ago
Exactly, as evidenced by individuals such as myself. But there is a hardcore contingent of libertarians who are turning this into a crusade against govt regulation, and I, as a BitCoin supporter myself, do not want to be painted by that brush. It makes it easier to attack politically, when we should be discussing BitCoin with technological concerns and on its technological merits so that people aren't blinded by politics when considering it.
- joepie91_ 13y ago
  Then a good start would probably be to not generalize "Bitcoin supporters" yourself :) On a more serious note, there might be a group of 'supporters' who are 'libertarians', but the reality is that their existence or notoriety really don't matter all that much. If somebody seeks to generalize to discredit Bitcoin, then they will do so anyway - whether it's one libertarian or a million, and whether they're 'hardcore' or hardly noticeable. As long as these people do not try to take an "official spokesperson" type of position with their personal ideology, they can be safely ignored if you do not agree with their point of view. That's the beautiful thing about Bitcoin: it exists, whether you want it or not... and what somebody elses political views are does not change whether it exists or how it works :)
  - Aqueous 13y ago
    I guess the problem is I seem to be seriously outnumbered by the libertarian contingent, who seem to be the most vocal, outspoken about it. If I knew of more "liberal-tarian" supporters of BitCoin I would be more hesitant to generalize. It is true that BitCoin can survive on its technological underpinnings alone. But I think we should change the way we are conversing about it so that we don't immediately make enemies of a large group that has an ideological stake in the govt being the only authority for any and all currency. I think this becomes a real danger when we begin to legislate on something. The nature of politics is that it frequently conceals the truth. Otherwise intelligent people are completely unable to see the best qualities of something if they feel it goes against their political ideology.