Topic: Antifragility or robust? Nassim Taleb on fragility, centralization,.. (Read 1367 times)

The thing that captured me most about bitcoin is the ability to send micro-payments. After some reading, I realize this is also a risk to bitoin as micro payments would probably slow down the verification process tremendously. What if someone creates a BTC button that is used as much as Facebooks 'Like' button? At that point in my thinking, I realized that bitcoin should position itself for the high end (in my opinion) and partner up with lesser coins that are application specific. Maybe there's a D(onation) coin created where non-profits process the chain. They become trusted because their books are wide open, users know with certainty how and where their charity is applied through public and open audits to the chain.

I know that micro-payments is just one of many possibilities, but I could imagine the verification process being brought to its knees with any popularity.

I read the book, and I'm actually working on a blog post analysing Bitcoin from the point of view of antifragility and even make two recommendations. I'll reply to this thread once again once the post goes online. I don't have a date yet but I guess about 2-3 weeks (I have other stuff to blog about before).

I am currently listening to this book, about 70% through.

I'm not so sure Bitcoin is antifragile yet--in the past it has been hit with Black Swan events (hacking -> loss of confidence) and the price went straight back down. The "problem" is as it makes further inroads into the mainstream, the technology and services surrounding it (hedge funds, merchant acceptance, etc) will increase the complexity of the bitcoin arena, and we will fall into the same trap as traditional markets (people calling for "protection" from fraud by--who else? Their government). One edge it does have is that currently no government can devalue it without considerable computing power, intelligence, and organization. An intervention from any government would only make for a huge opportunity for other governments, which might lend towards antifragility. But alas disorder from outside bitcoin is not disorder in the system of bitcoin itself.

That said, it is true that the software is continually improved after each bug or fork or error is found (a modicum of antifragility). But like the book says, you shouldn't confuse lack of evidence for evidence of lack. Or something like that.

Still grokking this. Taleb did an AMA the other day and only had a passing remark about Bitcoin (a government-free currency is something that is sorely needed), would love to hear his recommendations as to how to make it intrinsically antifragile.

Certainly seems that bitcoin gains from disorder and there is plenty of fuel.