8 ms·

Do you think the central banking based currencies offer any democratic control? You'd be kidding yourself if you thought so. Central banking centralizes contr

by ende 12y ago

Do you think the central banking based currencies offer any democratic control? You'd be kidding yourself if you thought so. Central banking centralizes control of a currency under the influence and in the interests of the economic elite. Distributed currencies like bitcoin deny that control to a centralized authority. That alone makes it more democratic. It is important to note that it is not bitcoin itself that is revolutionary, but all the distributed currencies that follow it. It is the evolutionary modification and adoption of those currencies that is democratic, through the emergence of a competetive market of currencies all based on different ideas.

Frondo 12y ago
Of course we can decide how the central bank works in the U.S.--we vote for new politicians whose views on money more closely align with our own. They install new administrators, who set policy that more closely aligns with our views. Do we vote on central banking policies directly? No, of course not. Does that mean nothing ever changes? No, of course not. I'm not sure who, if Mitt Romney had won, he'd have named as Fed chair, but I suspect it wouldn't have been Janet Yellen. (Just like, had McCain won in 2008, we sure wouldn't have anything like the Affordable Care Act--which, flawed as it is, is a big improvement over the old status quo.) That's how democratic access to money policy works; we vote, power realigns in accordance with our votes, and a few years down the road, we do it again.
- rjett 12y ago
  "That's how democratic access to money policy works; we vote, power realigns in accordance with our votes, and a few years down the road, we do it again." And therein lies a problem. Under a system like this, policy is geared towards affecting the short term in order to affect the next election cycle and no heed is given to how things play out in the long run.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    I think the economy is something we can revisit every couple of years, to see, do we still like the direction it's going? Should we keep the old people in, vote for new people? Maybe 4 years is too short a time to revisit the question. Maybe too long. I don't know if 4 years is the best length of time, but it doesn't make sense to make it too long a period of time; we've got to have a chance to change course every so often.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  We decide how central banks work by electing a new president, hoping the current chair expires during their term, having a new chair approved, hoping the new chair has the authority to and does implement the policies we want. How is that better and more likely to happen than allowing 51% of the network to just adopt a new protocol and cut out all the middlepeople?
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    The Fed was established by an act of Congress and can be changed or abolished by an act of Congress. Congress is democratically elected. That's the connection to the people. The reason Congress has not abolished the Fed is that most people think that the Fed is pretty good at what it is supposed to do.
    - ende 12y ago
      You assume there is any real democratic control of Congress, and that the whole game hasn't been rigged by a duopolist oligarchy.
    - alextgordon 12y ago
      America doesn't even have democratically elected presidents (just ask Al Gore). Hoping that Congress will even halfway represent the wishes of the people is bold.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      Most people have no idea what the Fed does (let alone that it even exists) nor do they have any framework with which to evaluate its work.
      - bpodgursky 12y ago
        I assure you, if inflation reached 10+%, most every voter in the US would know what the Fed does and what they wanted it to do instead. The non-conspiracy fact is the Fed has stayed quiet during the past 7 years because it has done a remarkably good job compared to their conservative-to-the-point-of-incompetency European counterparts. Europeans are quite familiar with ECB policy, because it has handled the crisis so astoundingly badly.
sanswork 12y ago
>Distributed currencies like bitcoin deny that control to a centralized authority. What is the minimum number of people you think it would take to decide on a change to some rule of bitcoin and have enough combined power to force the change through?
- ende 12y ago
  Isn't it 51%? Im not really sure. But I don't really see changes occurring through that route, but rather by forking off derivative currencies with modifications. Democratic selection decides which currencies gain value. To me, modifying the rules in mid-game seems the wrong point of entry.
  - sanswork 12y ago
    Yup which at the moment would take 4 people(The heads of the 4 biggest pools). 4 people with no real reason for it being them except that they run successful pools. Hows that for centralization?
    - ende 12y ago
      Glad you read the first 7 words of my reply to satisfy your cleverly devised bait. I encourage you to read the rest.
      - sanswork 12y ago
        Your original statement was that Bitcoin removes that centralized control. Saying you wouldn't do it doesn't stop it from being possible.
      - ende 12y ago
        Ah, I see the ambiguity in my wording. I meant that distributed currencies as a general concept (invoking bitcoin as an example of a single digital currency) removes centralization. You're right that any one such currency may retain the potential for centralized control, but what interests me is the opportunity for digital currencies to evolve through the emergence of improved implementations. In that manner we can escape centralized control. I'm more interested in blockchains than Bitcoins.
bduerst 12y ago
Why do bitcoin evangelists always deflect by pointing fingers at central banking? Bitcoin is controlled by the few barons who own most of the coins, and unlike central banks, those barons are entirely, rationally aligned with their own personal profit. Same with the overseas miners who invested in infrastructure. The federal reserve may be influenced by politics, but at least it is aligned with keeping the USD currency stable, and usable by citizens. The personal interests of the bitcoin elite are why bitcoin suffers from tragedy of the commons. Bitcoin will never be anything but deflationary because the ones who control it (barons, miners) do not profit from change that is beneficial for bitcoin.
- ende 12y ago
  Why do their detractors never read anything that they actually said, and instead resort to immature ranting?
  - bduerst 12y ago
    Why do you commit an Ad hominem fallacy to avoid addressing the point?
- bdcravens 12y ago
  You make good points, but they're completely drowned out by the noise of the derisive term. Seriously, leave the memes on Reddit.
  - bduerst 12y ago
    Ah, I see the problem now. I had the "cloud to butt" chrome extension for bitcoin turned on. I totally agree - fixed.
    - ende 12y ago
      Are you serious? Because if so, 1) that's hilarious, and 2) I'll gladly respond to your revised reply as absent the term 'buttcoin' you raise some legitimate points I'd be happy to converse over.
codexon 12y ago
You should know that control over bitcoin is given to those with more than 50% of the total hashing power and this is not really equivalent to 50% of the users.
- ende 12y ago
  Right. I believe there are a few bitcoin derivatives (or unrelated blockchain currencies) that do denominate control by the number of users, though?
  - codexon 12y ago
    And just how do you prove each user is tied to 1 person as opposed to one elite running a million copies? You can't.
- oafitupa 12y ago
  50% of the total hashing power only gives you certain powers, and certainly not "control over Bitcoin". For instance, you can't change the protocol any more than you could without the hashing power. The economic majority controls Bitcoin, not the miners alone. Have you even heard about nodes?

by ende 12y ago

Frondo 12y ago

Of course we can decide how the central bank works in the U.S.--we vote for new politicians whose views on money more closely align with our own. They install new administrators, who set policy that more closely aligns with our views. Do we vote on central banking policies directly? No, of course not. Does that mean nothing ever changes? No, of course not. I'm not sure who, if Mitt Romney had won, he'd have named as Fed chair, but I suspect it wouldn't have been Janet Yellen. (Just like, had McCain won in 2008, we sure wouldn't have anything like the Affordable Care Act--which, flawed as it is, is a big improvement over the old status quo.) That's how democratic access to money policy works; we vote, power realigns in accordance with our votes, and a few years down the road, we do it again.

rjett 12y ago
"That's how democratic access to money policy works; we vote, power realigns in accordance with our votes, and a few years down the road, we do it again." And therein lies a problem. Under a system like this, policy is geared towards affecting the short term in order to affect the next election cycle and no heed is given to how things play out in the long run.
- Frondo 12y ago
  I think the economy is something we can revisit every couple of years, to see, do we still like the direction it's going? Should we keep the old people in, vote for new people? Maybe 4 years is too short a time to revisit the question. Maybe too long. I don't know if 4 years is the best length of time, but it doesn't make sense to make it too long a period of time; we've got to have a chance to change course every so often.
jsprogrammer 12y ago
We decide how central banks work by electing a new president, hoping the current chair expires during their term, having a new chair approved, hoping the new chair has the authority to and does implement the policies we want. How is that better and more likely to happen than allowing 51% of the network to just adopt a new protocol and cut out all the middlepeople?
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  The Fed was established by an act of Congress and can be changed or abolished by an act of Congress. Congress is democratically elected. That's the connection to the people. The reason Congress has not abolished the Fed is that most people think that the Fed is pretty good at what it is supposed to do.
  - ende 12y ago
    You assume there is any real democratic control of Congress, and that the whole game hasn't been rigged by a duopolist oligarchy.
  - alextgordon 12y ago
    America doesn't even have democratically elected presidents (just ask Al Gore). Hoping that Congress will even halfway represent the wishes of the people is bold.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    Most people have no idea what the Fed does (let alone that it even exists) nor do they have any framework with which to evaluate its work.
    - bpodgursky 12y ago
      I assure you, if inflation reached 10+%, most every voter in the US would know what the Fed does and what they wanted it to do instead. The non-conspiracy fact is the Fed has stayed quiet during the past 7 years because it has done a remarkably good job compared to their conservative-to-the-point-of-incompetency European counterparts. Europeans are quite familiar with ECB policy, because it has handled the crisis so astoundingly badly.

sanswork 12y ago

>Distributed currencies like bitcoin deny that control to a centralized authority. What is the minimum number of people you think it would take to decide on a change to some rule of bitcoin and have enough combined power to force the change through?

ende 12y ago
Isn't it 51%? Im not really sure. But I don't really see changes occurring through that route, but rather by forking off derivative currencies with modifications. Democratic selection decides which currencies gain value. To me, modifying the rules in mid-game seems the wrong point of entry.
- sanswork 12y ago
  Yup which at the moment would take 4 people(The heads of the 4 biggest pools). 4 people with no real reason for it being them except that they run successful pools. Hows that for centralization?
  - ende 12y ago
    Glad you read the first 7 words of my reply to satisfy your cleverly devised bait. I encourage you to read the rest.
    - sanswork 12y ago
      Your original statement was that Bitcoin removes that centralized control. Saying you wouldn't do it doesn't stop it from being possible.
    - ende 12y ago
      Ah, I see the ambiguity in my wording. I meant that distributed currencies as a general concept (invoking bitcoin as an example of a single digital currency) removes centralization. You're right that any one such currency may retain the potential for centralized control, but what interests me is the opportunity for digital currencies to evolve through the emergence of improved implementations. In that manner we can escape centralized control. I'm more interested in blockchains than Bitcoins.

bduerst 12y ago

Why do bitcoin evangelists always deflect by pointing fingers at central banking? Bitcoin is controlled by the few barons who own most of the coins, and unlike central banks, those barons are entirely, rationally aligned with their own personal profit. Same with the overseas miners who invested in infrastructure. The federal reserve may be influenced by politics, but at least it is aligned with keeping the USD currency stable, and usable by citizens. The personal interests of the bitcoin elite are why bitcoin suffers from tragedy of the commons. Bitcoin will never be anything but deflationary because the ones who control it (barons, miners) do not profit from change that is beneficial for bitcoin.

ende 12y ago
Why do their detractors never read anything that they actually said, and instead resort to immature ranting?
- bduerst 12y ago
  Why do you commit an Ad hominem fallacy to avoid addressing the point?
bdcravens 12y ago
You make good points, but they're completely drowned out by the noise of the derisive term. Seriously, leave the memes on Reddit.
- bduerst 12y ago
  Ah, I see the problem now. I had the "cloud to butt" chrome extension for bitcoin turned on. I totally agree - fixed.
  - ende 12y ago
    Are you serious? Because if so, 1) that's hilarious, and 2) I'll gladly respond to your revised reply as absent the term 'buttcoin' you raise some legitimate points I'd be happy to converse over.

codexon 12y ago

You should know that control over bitcoin is given to those with more than 50% of the total hashing power and this is not really equivalent to 50% of the users.

ende 12y ago
Right. I believe there are a few bitcoin derivatives (or unrelated blockchain currencies) that do denominate control by the number of users, though?
- codexon 12y ago
  And just how do you prove each user is tied to 1 person as opposed to one elite running a million copies? You can't.
oafitupa 12y ago
50% of the total hashing power only gives you certain powers, and certainly not "control over Bitcoin". For instance, you can't change the protocol any more than you could without the hashing power. The economic majority controls Bitcoin, not the miners alone. Have you even heard about nodes?