Bitcoin philosophical musings and pressures 7 years in [drifted from: txrate, forking, etc]

[Sean Lynch]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:27 PM Juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>         It seems kinda obvious that virtually all bitcoin developers
>         and users *in the west* are richer than people in Africa and
>         India.
>
>         That's what I was getting at. Bitcoin devs  - *already
>         rich by 'third world' standards* - are richer now. Millionaires
>         even (notice that grarpamp was talking about impoverished
>         wages...and people)
>

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, when we have statements
of intent in the creator's own words. 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.


>
>
>
> > Remittances seem like the biggest use of Bitcoin at the moment. Sure,
> > there's plenty of speculation, but your claim that Bitcoin's purpose
> > is to make the rich richer is also speculation. And FUD.
>
>
>         So what amount of btc is being used to make payments between
>         Botswana and Mumbai?
>

No real way of knowing. I only have anecdotal evidence.


>
>         What amount of btc is being used to speculate/gamble in a few
>         big, centralized and fully NSA-AML-monitored exchanges?
>

Probably a lot. But that's true of cash as well.


> >
> >
> > >         Bitcoin hasn't led to any meaningful political/economic
> > >         change yet, apart from possibly triggering the demise of
> > >         government cash, which would be a complete disaster. Talk
> > > about 'unintended consequences' (unintended?)
> > >
> >
> > I can't imagine you've read a single thing written by the people who
> > influenced the creation of Bitcoin if you think that the collapse of
> > fiat currencies is an unintended consequence.
>
>
>         But I said *cash* not fiat.  And the collapse of relatively
>         untraceable *cash* is *bad*.
>
>         What we may end up with is FIAT currencies and  NO CASH
>         option* for those fiat currencies. Bad. Pretty bad.
>

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, and by enabling other applications on top of it,
including untraceable e-cash, will only make it better.


>
>
>         *aka credit cards.
>
>
> > Any fiat currency that
> > is so bad that its users prefer to use Bitcoin deserves to collapse.
> > Of course, so far, while Bitcoin has become popular in places like
> > Argentina
>
>         Do you know where I live? Of course you don't have to know
>         where I live. But you'll know it in a second anyway. I live in
>         argentina - and let me tell you, bitcoin isnt exactly 'popular'
>         here.
>

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. 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.


> > and Venezuela, the US dollar remains by far the more
> > popular alternative currency in those places.
>
>         Yep, that's quite correct as far as argentina goes. I suspect
>         it's true regarding venezuela as well.
>
>
> And if Greece exits the
> > Euro and starts printing Drachmas there, they will have to worry
> > about people trading their Drachmas for Euros, not for Bitcoin.
>
> > >         A likely scenario exists in which there wouldn't be any
> > >         independent crypto-currency. There would be fully
> > > 'traceable' electronic currencies controlled as always by the state
> > > and the banking mafia.
> > >
> >
> >  By what evidence do you estimate that this is a "likely" scenario?
>
>
>         The evidence is called 'history'. That, and the nature of
>         government and its business 'partners' - or accomplices.
>

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." Or maybe you think that Bitcoin is just
a reckless toy created by greedy first worlders?


>
> > You may be right that many nation-states and banks will be loathe to
> > accept an untraceable and uncontrollable crypto-currency, but that's
> > the whole point;
>
>         You seem to be assuming that an uncontrollable and untraceable
>         crypto-currency exist? I'm not seeing anything of the sort.
>

It depends on what you mean by "exist." The people on this list have
created several. It seems like a major reason that none of them has taken
off has been the need for trusted third parties, something that can be
reduced or eliminated through the use of the blockchain, if not Bitcoin
itself. Bitcoin could, for example, be used as a clearing currency between
various Chaumian e-cash issuers, the same way gold used to be used as the
international clearing currency until Bretton Woods.


> > 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.


>         Of course, this isn't a shortcoming that only affects btc.
>         Anything that the government 'outlaws' becomes harder to
>         transact.
>

I'm not even sure what form outlawing Bitcoin would take in the US. I
suppose they could try to define mining or even running a full client as
operating a payment service. But that would take some backtracking after
all the regulatory efforts. Which may be a reason I should not be ranting
against regulation; it hamstring's government's ability to completely
outlaw it later.


>
> > The main problem that
> > they've run up against before now is the lack of healthy underground
> > markets to take advantage of them. Given time, governments' and
> > banks' opinions and policies about cryptocurrencies will become
> > irrelevant.
>
>
>         I do wish that was actually the case, but I think that view
>         doesn't fully take into account the capabilities of the
>         'enemy'.
>

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. 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,
which is blunted somewhat by the extreme inefficiency of government
contracting/spending/operations/etc.

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. 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. 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.

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 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 11633 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20150708/701638ae/attachment-0002.txt>