On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:08:40 +0000 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:
This is not what most people mean when they say "rich get richer." They're talking about 1%ers or whatever. In any case, you still seem to be making unfounded claims about the intent behind Bitcoin,
Let's say I was being cynical =)
when we have statements of intent in the creator's own words.
I know. "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution." (Come to think of it, I wouldn't say btc is cash, but that's yet another philosophical discussion)
Many believe Satoshi is also rich, Bitcoin-wise, but we don't even know for sure that they have the key to the account or that they will ever spend that Bitcoin. Personally, I hope they do. The creator of Bitcoin deserves to be rewarded.
Yes. Anyway, grarpamp comment sounded to me like "We're doing it for the poor children of africa" which struck me as somewhat hollow. But nevermind, I'll drop the subject.
My apologies. I was confused by your use of the phrase "government cash." Government cash is fiat, but not all fiat is cash. But the cashless societies already being proposed and implemented are fully centralized and much easier to trace than Bitcoin, because they require bank accounts with their concomitant "know your customer" regulations. Bitcoin doesn't make this situation worse,
True. My comment or observation is that bitcoin may have catalyzed the move towards a cashless society. Whether a cpunk-like currency will be used, or a goldman-sachs-like currency will be used remains to be seen, I think. But so be it I guess. If governments are forced to show their true totalitarian colors to an even larger extent than they do now, there will be some good in that.
and by enabling other applications on top of it, including untraceable e-cash, will only make it better.
I pledge the "wait and see" amendment =P I hope you're right.
Can you elaborate? Does your use of quotes around the word "popular" indicate sarcasm? My understanding was that a number of merchants had started using a payment system that used dollars from foreign credit cards to buy Bitcoin so that they did not have to accept the government-imposed exchange rate.
Actually, there are some people who use credit cards to buy btc (or other stuff abroad) using a government subsidized exchange rate. The are a couple of official exchange rates. One is set at ~8 pesos = 1 dollar. The other is at ~10 pesos = 1 dollar. If you buy stuff using an international credit card, you get the 10:1 exchange rate. Finally there's the real or black market exchange rate at ~13.5 pesos = 1 dollar. So, some people can buy btc (or, say, pay travel expenses abroad) using the 10:1 rate. The benefit you get doesn't really come from btc but from the distortions created by govt. By the way, the subsidy is, of course, financed with more inflation. And yes, the poorest people here are subsidizing people who travel to disneyland. If on the other hand you want to buy btc in a local exchange the price you will be asked in pesos is something like the price at bitstamp multiplied by the $:US$ black market exchange rate. https://www.unisend.com/ I'm seeing 1 btc = 3800 pesos. And 1 btc = us$ 265. So, that gives a price of 14.3 pesos per dollar (hm - even more expensive than black market) --------- I think there's a service here that allows you to pay utility bills using btc. I'm not sure what's the point because they (obviously) charge fees so you end up paying more than if you used pesos directly. I guess it's handy for people who already had btc but I doubt that number of people is significant. --------- And then there are a few bars and stores that accept btc, in argentina's capital (~10 million population). Where I live (rosario) I don't think there's a single store that accepts btc. --------- Now, there probably are people who use btc to move money in and out of the country although btc's exchange risk and spread arent't small. I know that if you want to move fiat accross borders using black market services, doing so isn't too expensive. So btc has to face efficient competitioni in that area.
I'm definitely interested in your insights on this, since I've never visited a country that was experiencing rampant inflation, unless you count the US in the late '70s, about the time I was entering grade school.
There was hyperinflation in argentina in 1989-90 - I was 19 at that time and I don't really recall much of what happened in everyday life. I know the prices of stuff in the supermarket changed each day but I didn't pay much attention. I wasn't really interested in political economy at that time. Then after that 1990 'crisis', the peso was pegged 1:1 to the dollar for ~10 years, until 2001 when the gov't defaulted and the banking system blew up. Since 2001, the a$/us$ rate went from 1:1 to 13:1 and you can use that as a relatively good proxy for inflation, although interestingly, the prices of things like food are at something like 20:1, prolly reflecting both the inflation of the peso AND the dollar, plus the fact that the local economy is a fucking mess ran by fucking protectionists. Anyway, the current inflation rate, by argentine standards, isn't too high, as crazy as that may sound. Usually the government cycles in argentina last 10 years or less, but these shitbags are somehow still clinging to power.
I think you overestimate the government's ability to exert control, something many of the participants in this list have devoted their lives to reducing. It's the whole point of Bitcoin, so it seems like you're basically just saying "Bitcoin will fail at its mission and instead just get coopted by the powers that be."
Yes, that is what I'm saying. Furthermore, I think that is already happening. https://blog.xapo.com/announcing-xapos-advisory-board/
Or maybe you think that Bitcoin is just a reckless toy created by greedy first worlders?
No. I don't consider it a toy. I don't know how robust (or scalable...) it actually is (apart from hashing power haha), but it's not a toy. As to motivations, I always assumed that the cypherpunk bunch was composed of *at least* anarchists, although what I see in this list is a sizable amount of self-parody (dan geer and accomplices for instance). However, the bitcoin phenomenom is complex, there's a lot of people involed the vast majority of whom I don't know at all, so I can't hardly known their motivations. Greed can certainly play a part here. (and notice that absent government we wouldn't need something like bitcoin to protect us from government attacks)
they're not going to have a choice. Cryptocurrencies don't have to be legal to be disruptive.
And yet there seems to be a fair amount of people in the bitcoin 'community' who are quite eager (or desperate) to have bitcoin 'regulated' so that it becomes 'respectable', 'legal'...and usable.
Indeed, something I have repeatedly ranted against. So far the regulation has not had much impact on Bitcoin itself. No legally "tainted" or "whitelisted" coins yet.
True. Regulation hasn't affected the technical/protocol side of bitcoin. Since you mention so called colored coins, wasn't that an idea of that guy mike hearn, ex member of the google mafia? You think that kind of people are to be trusted? <---rhetorical question... The thing is, regulation will affect how bitcoin is used, and that's not necessarily related to any technical issue. Whether you'll need 20 licenses to use bitcoin, or none. That kind of thing.
Perhaps, but that actually seems to be the crux of what we're arguing about here, and of many arguments on this list. What are the actual capabilities of the adversary? You don't want to underestimate, but at the same time, if you overestimate, you may miss a potential solution.
Maybe. Or you waste some resources. But if the actions of government were relatively easy to counter I think we would be looking at a political system rather different from the one that exists now.
Some are probably living as hermits because they think they're being monitored and/or given cancer by the smart meter mesh network. Personally, I tend to doubt that the government's capabilities significantly exceed what's available to the general public, except in terms of the money they're able to bring to bear,
Yeah, well. That might make a little difference, perhaps? =P But actually, the main issue is not even that they have access to lots of resources. What makes the difference is 1) guns 2) willingess to use them 3) better organization* *military organization - it doesn't matter if even the majority of government bureaucrats cant put 2 and 2 together.
which is blunted somewhat by the extreme inefficiency of government contracting/spending/operations/etc.
You know, I'm rather familiar with libertarian theory if that's where you're coming from. I don't think that the fact that government organization in some areas is inefficient means anything. Government is (very) efficient at its core criminal businesses.
A "litmus test" issue might be whether you think the NSA's expressed surprise over Snowden's leaks was genuine. I tend to think it was, and that his documents are genuine.
Which documents? =) The very few that have been published? =) (....) Yes, they may be genuine, but surely you realize that we don't have access to the vast majority of them. You think that's because of government incompetence...?
I see no reason for the NSA to be substantially more competent than, say, the OPM. They're each large organizations with no bottom line that attract people of flexible moral character who are attracted to power and/or job security.
Yes. So, they are good in those two areas, especially in the wielding of power.
I don't think those traits tend to lead to effective organizations, as much as a number of Hollywood movies would like us to believe.
I don't really watch hollywood movies =P. And I don't think hollywood movies mention this kind of thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate Do you think a government that efficiently kidnaps millions of its own subjects for fun and profit is not an exceedinly efficient criminal organization?
A kind of fun book on the OTHER side of the spectrum from what I believe about government's capabilities is Daniel Suarez's book Influx, about a government agency tasked with keeping technologies out of the hands of the public.
I don't think they necessarily have any magical secret weapon. They don't really need them anyway. All they need is ordinary lead bullets.
I think you'd need a pretty substantial head start before technological advantages can overcome organizational and general human disadvantages, though. I.e. leaks, infiltration, etc.
See above... (ufff - sorry about the really long message) J.