Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin - The Libertarian Introduction (a primer on Bitcoin) - page 2. (Read 7074 times)

legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
I went ahead and read through the comments and really like David Robertson's comment. Seems like some people do get it Smiley

Quote

I wrote the above comment before I read the article and the bitcoin.org website. I did this deliberately since I wanted to lay down the foundation of how money comes into existence and what money is.

There is no question in my mind that the bitcoin is indeed money and harnesses all the features of gold and silver while wedding them to the Internet in a peer to peer payment system. The creators of bitcoin have used an analogy of gold and gold mining to create their system and this is justifiable I believe.

The Land in this case is the pool of talent within the bitcoin community and the Labour is the application of the efforts of the original source code creators and the "miners" who bring the blocks of bitcoins into existence. It is then easy to see that bitcoins are genuine money.

Now, there are other features that I find interesting and intriguing. There is another analogy that can be used to understand this phenomenon. This is the formation of a corporation with a block of "authorised share capital" and a block of "issued and outstanding share capital" . The authorised capital would be the c.21 million bitcoins that can be created over time. The issued and outstanding capital consists of the bitcoins that have been issued to date. The business of the corporation itself is the payment system that bitcoin facilitates and represents.

When one sees it in this way then it is obvious that by becoming an early adopter (shareholder) of bitcoin there is a very real possiblity that one couild profit as the payment system is used more widely and the value of the "corporation" and therefore the price of the "shares" increase. The fact that the number of "shares" that can be issued is finite leads to an even greater likelihood of appreciation in the price of bitcoins.

The same caveats as investing in a "venture" company apply but since the system is already up and running and there are more and more joining every day (61,500 bitcoins traded on just one exchange today) the risks are less than one might imagine. Of course one must be circumspect but it might be worth a flutter.

The other feature I liked was the potential link with gold and silver. I use a Goldmoney account and since last year they have stopped offering inter-account transfers under pressure from the government. Eric Voorhees advertises a website offering gold and silver coins for bitcoins and it may well be that Goldmoney will do the same at some point. Then one could use gold and silver as stores of value and "earn" bitcoins on various websites offering payment in bitcoins for filling out surveys, reading adverts etc. The bitcoins could be used to trade for goods and services and to purchase gold and silver to spread the risk and create a store of value.

All in all I agree that when Dr. Paul is President and the market is opened up to competing currencies, removing the threat of government interference, the bitcoin system will come into its own. There is no doubt it has been created for such a time as this. I am not too surprised that it is opposed by the von Mises Institute. They can be quite doctrinaire. They also oppose Professor Fekete's ideas on Adam Smith's Real Bills Doctrine. However they are free market advocates also so that will put everything to the test.

BTW Bitcoin also mentions fractional reserve banking being used to increase the money supply. This is not something I would agree with since I believe it to be fraudulent but it may not last long since in the first place a bitcoin/gold/silver system would tend to be deflationary and this makes all borrowing less attractive. Secondly the existence of fractional reserves would have to be declared and people would be unlikely to provide savings to such an enterprise since other safer options would be available. It would take only a couple of bank collapses to put an end to that way of doing business.

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007
maybe also a generational problem. most of these libertarians are probably not really digital natives. they need something that's shiny and they can touch.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
I think it's only fitting to post this piece on the 5th most visited libertarian website, right?   Cool

http://www.dailypaul.com/226936/if-the-government-hates-it-dont-you-think-you-should-at-least-consider-learning-about-it

Man there's still so many close minded die hard precious metals almost religious fanatic like advocates among libertarians completely opposed to what the free market came up with and even to just the idea that such a thing as an artificial and yet sound currency could exist.

But I do notice a lot more people open and supportive to the idea. I just don't understand how libertarians of all people can be so damn close minded that they aren't even willing to spend some time and learn about it in detail before they dismiss it. Human nature sucks.  Undecided
hero member
Activity: 484
Merit: 500
The best article about Bitcoin I've read to date (and I've read them all).


+1
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1023
Democracy is the original 51% attack
Just now getting around to reading it. This is one great article, albeit I did find an error.

Quote
Bitcoin is thus the only currency and money system in the world which has no counter-party risk to hold and to transfer. This is absolutely revolutionary and you should read the preceding sentence again.


Actually this particular paragraph might contain a slight overstatement: it's more accurate to write that bitcoin allows us for the first time in history to spread the counter-party risk on the entire community (of miners) instead of relying on a single counter-party (single point-of-failure).
As such, bitcoin can be said the first ever "community based" monetary system, one that cannot be easily hijacked by a small group of people.

I don't think the miners qualify as counter-party risk. In fact, if they all stopped, I could mine myself Wink

Of course, we could also say Bitcoin has counter-party risk in the internet infrastructure itself... I rely on the cables and electricity and servers. But I think that starts becoming a meaningless definition of "counter party risk".

It is the fact that no single entity or organization is vulnerable or can halt the payment or holding of Bitcoin. THAT is the breakthrough and I thus I think the statement "no counter party risk" is valid.
legendary
Activity: 1221
Merit: 1025
e-ducat.fr
Just now getting around to reading it. This is one great article, albeit I did find an error.

Quote
Bitcoin is thus the only currency and money system in the world which has no counter-party risk to hold and to transfer. This is absolutely revolutionary and you should read the preceding sentence again.


Actually this particular paragraph might contain a slight overstatement: it's more accurate to write that bitcoin allows us for the first time in history to spread the counter-party risk on the entire community (of miners) instead of relying on a single counter-party (single point-of-failure).
As such, bitcoin can be said the first ever "community based" monetary system, one that cannot be easily hijacked by a small group of people.
legendary
Activity: 1102
Merit: 1014
The Freedom's Phoenix issue that includes this article is now available at coinDL: https://www.coindl.com/page/item/123
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
LOL well thank you Bruno, I've made the change according to your recommended edit.

And you thught I was am dwinkking! Now itss pefecck. Hic!


legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1023
Democracy is the original 51% attack
LOL well thank you Bruno, I've made the change according to your recommended edit.
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
Quote
Furthermore, Erik is also a partner in a couple top-secret super-subversive Bitcoin-based projects...

Let me guess the URL: bitcoin.com?

~Bruno~
donator
Activity: 798
Merit: 500
Nice work Erik.  Please leave a link when the next interview airs.
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
I added the to, for it was missing.
Oh I get it now, sorry!

No prob, rjk. A mentor of mine (RIP) once asked me to write a sentence that he was about to utter. He uttered it. I couldn't write it. Here is that sentence where one word (phonically written in bold) couldn't be written: There are three 2's in the English language. Although this sentence can be uttered (on an utter kick  Smiley), it can't be written so that it's grammatically correct, for which one of the following would you use: 2; two; to; or too?

I think it's only fitting to post this piece on the 5th most visited libertarian website, right?   Cool

http://www.dailypaul.com/226936/if-the-government-hates-it-dont-you-think-you-should-at-least-consider-learning-about-it

I just visited this site, and was taken aback while reading the negative comments. Am I correct in stating that these folks who have a clue, don't have a clue?

~Bruno~
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
I added the to, for it was missing.
Oh I get it now, sorry!
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
How the hell am I suppose to enjoy reading this diatribe if I keep finding errors. This is the second one found about 3/4 of the page down.

Quote
You can assume no government wants you to adopt this system in any capacity, and for that reason alone it's worth consideration by honest, moral, and industrious people.

(or is it: ...wants you adopting this system...?)

Damn, I enjoy this article so, so much.

~Bruno~

What's incorrect about that?

I added the to, for it was missing. But I am asking if "to" should be included. I, in no way, am being hyper-critical by commenting on the grammar or spelling. On the contrary, I find this so well written, that if I, not a seasoned wordsmith, can improve upon it by pointing out such ONE minor error, than I feel I've contributed my share to Bitcoin. And another thing--only Matthew is allowed to ask if I've been drinking.  Grin

Again, this is a great article, evoorhees. You're my favorite writer on this forum.

~Bruno~
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
How the hell am I suppose to enjoy reading this diatribe if I keep finding errors. This is the second one found about 3/4 of the page down.

Quote
You can assume no government wants you to adopt this system in any capacity, and for that reason alone it's worth consideration by honest, moral, and industrious people.

(or is it: ...wants you adopting this system...?)

Damn, I enjoy this article so, so much.

~Bruno~

What's incorrect about that?
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1023
Democracy is the original 51% attack
How the hell am I suppose to enjoy reading this diatribe if I keep finding errors. This is the second one found about 3/4 of the page down.

Quote
You can assume no government wants you to adopt this system in any capacity, and for that reason alone it's worth consideration by honest, moral, and industrious people.

(or is it: ...wants you adopting this system...?)

Damn, I enjoy this article so, so much.

~Bruno~


Are you drunk Bruno? Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
How the hell am I suppose to enjoy reading this diatribe if I keep finding errors. This is the second one found about 3/4 of the page down.

Quote
You can assume no government wants you to adopt this system in any capacity, and for that reason alone it's worth consideration by honest, moral, and industrious people.

(or is it: ...wants you adopting this system...?)

Damn, I enjoy this article so, so much.

~Bruno~
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
Just now getting around to reading it. This is one great article, albeit I did find an error.

Quote
Bitcoin is thus the only currency and money system in the world which has no counter-party risk to hold and to transfer. This is absolutely revolutionary and you should read the preceding sentence again. Gold advocates will point out that physical gold bullion has no counter-party risk, but that is only true for storage in your own home. Store it in a vault or bank and you have counter-party risk. And sending gold? You have to trust all sorts of people if you wish to transfer your gold somewhere else or spend it across distance.

Does anybody else see it? Thought not, therefore I'll divulge the faux pas--the font size of this paragraph is smaller than the rest of the text.  Smiley

Back to reading.

~Bruno~

EDIT: Just got to the section that has the image of the cock and hen, and realized for the first time that the paragraphs are beautified. Interesting choice!
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
Maybe it is smarter now and allocates 10K addresses for itself so that you don't need to be backing up all the time.
It does this, only with 100 keys. See wiki: key pool.

Yeah the wallet has 100 addresses ready in its queue - most casual users are not going to use more than this (especially for a crucial savings wallet - it'll probably only have a few addresses used), and I'm quite sure the deterministic wallets will become standard, so the potential problem of which you speak should go away on its own. I was trying to make the article somewhat future-proof (and had to keep it simple), so I didn't delve into nuances like this.

100 transactions ever isn't that unlikely. And probably by the time they are putting serious money in and then retrieving their backup they'll be past that. It is sends (new change address) and newly generated payment addresses (used or not, click that button 100 times and your backup won't work from that point).

Maybe devs could change the default to 1000 if bulk generation can/is done smoothly now. But that's still not foolproof.

Yeah, 1000 isn't that big of a deal, and really 10000 isn't either (as far as storage). This extra bit of data will make it so backups for 99.99% of people would be unneeded, which is awesome.
A backed up deterministic wallets has zero chance of losing funds and is a way more robust solution that just generating 10,000 addresses for the keypool
Pages:
Jump to: